Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDesign Review - no separator sheetZONING CODE AMENDMENT CIT7 0� BURLINGAME o° nwT[u .�anc °- The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL (650) 558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX_ (650) 696-3790 June 3, 2003 Otto Miller 911 N. Amphlett Blvd. San Mateo CA 94402 Dear Mr. Miller, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission approval of your application for a mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, design review and special permits became effective June 2, 2003. This application was to allow for the re-emergence of three existing lots, and the construction of 3 new, two-story single-family dwellings and two attached garages at 1537 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1. The May 27, 2003 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 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 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 AA 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, AA 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; 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 Mit. Neg. Dec, CUP, Design Review and Special Permits 1537 Drake Avenue 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 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 City Arborist's 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; Mit. Neg. Dec, CUP, Design Review and Special Permits 1537 Drake Avenue 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 comer 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 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 Mit. Neg. Dec, CUP, Design Review and Special Permits 1 S37 Drake Avenue 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 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; 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; Mit. Neg. Dec, CUP, Design Review and Special Permits 1537 Drake Avenue 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 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 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; 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; Mit. Neg. Dec, CUP, Design Review and Special Permits 1537 Drake Avenue 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 ofthe California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Reimbursement of your design review deposit has been processed and will be mailed the property owner under separate cover. All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year maybe considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. Sincerely yours, I *(rl� W-1-- Margaret Monroe City Planner EUs 1537DRAK.cca C. Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (LOTS 9, 10 AND 11 BLOCK 55 EASTON ADD BURLINGAME NO 5 RSM 7/46; APN: 026- 033-030) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Item # 6 Regular Action Calendar City of Burlingame Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for Re-emergence of Three Parcels Previously Merged by a Structure, Design Review for Three New Single -Family Residences and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages Address: 1537 Drake Avenue Meeting Date: 05/27/03 Request: Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional use permit for re-emergence of three parcels previously merged by a structure, design review for three new single-family residences, and special permits for two attached garages. Applicant and Property Owner: Otto Miller APN: 026-033-030 Designer: James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering Lot Area: each lot 6006 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Refer to Negative Declaration ND-525-P and Addendum Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to demolish an existing single -story house with attached garage, guesthouse, pool house, and several storage sheds on an interior parcel on Drake Avenue. With the demolition of the structures on the parcel, three 6006 SF lots will re-emerge: Lot 9 (Lot A), Lot 10 (Lot B) and Lot 11 (Lot Q. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the re- emergence of three lots, design review for three new, two-story single-family residences, one on each of the re-emerging lots, and special permits for attached garages on Lots 9 and 11. There are two groves of significant Redwood trees on Lot 9. House on Lot 9 (Lot A) The house on Lot 9 (Lot A, plans date stamped March 13, 2003) will have 2,733 SF (0.46 FAR), where 3022 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed dwelling has 4 bedrooms and the proposed single -car attached garage meets the parking requirements for a four -bedroom house. The attached garage requires a special permit. The landscape plan, Sheet L-1 (date stamped April 25, 2003), shows that the existing significant Redwood trees on this lot will remain after construction and 14 new trees will be added on the lot to screen the two-story house. The following species are proposed on Lot 9: Tasmanian Tree Fern (7 —15 gallon), Yew Pine (4 —15 gallon), Citrus (2 —15 gallon), and Japanese Maple (1 —24" box -size). Required trees to comply with the reforestation ordinance are 3, 24" box size non -fruit trees (3, 15 gallon trees are equivalent to 1, 24" box), where 1, 24" box size and 11, 15 gallon non -fruit trees are proposed, in addition to the 6 existing protected -size Redwood trees that will remain on site. The applicant is also proposing to plant a pear tree in the planter strip in the public right-of-way in front of Lot 9. Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages House on Lot 10 (Lot B) The house proposed for Lot 10 (Lot B, plans date stamped March 13, 2003 sheets A-1 and A-6, date stamped April 2, 2003 sheets A-2, A-3 and A-5, date stamped April 25, sheets A-4 and L-1) will have 3422 SF (0.57 FAR), where 3422 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed dwelling has 5 bedrooms and the proposed two -car detached garage meets the parking requirements for a five -bedroom house. Sheet L-1 shows that, in addition to an existing tree cluster (not Redwood trees) at the front of the lot which will remain, 11 new trees will be added on the lot to screen the two-story house and garage. The following species are proposed on Sheet L1 (date stamped April 25, 2003) for Lot 10: Pittosporum Tree (2 —24" box size), Yew Pine (5 -15 gallon), Cherry (2 —15 gallon), Southern Magnolia (2 —24" box size). Required trees to comply with the reforestation ordinance are 3, 24" box size non -fruit trees (3, 15 gallon trees are equivalent to 1, 24" box), where 2, 24" box size and 5, 15 gallon trees are proposed, in addition to the existing tree cluster at the front of the lot that will remain after construction. House on Lot 11 (Lot C) The house on Lot 11 (Lot C, plans date stamped March 13, 2003) will have 2,799 SF (0.47 FAR), where 3022 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed dwelling has 4 bedrooms and the proposed single -car attached garage meets the parking requirements for a four -bedroom house. The attached garage requires a special permit. The landscape plan, Sheet L-1 (date stamped March 13, 2003), shows that 9 new trees will be added on the lot to screen the two-story house. The following species are proposed on Lot 11: Tasmanian Tree Fern (3 —5 gallon), Star Magnolia (1 —5 gallon), Citrus (2 —15 gallon), White Birch (2 -24" box size), and Japanese Maple (1 —24" box -size). Required trees to comply with the reforestation ordinance are 3, 24" box size non -fruit trees (3, 15 gallon trees are equivalent to 1, 24" box), where 3, 24" box size, and 4, 5-gallon non -fruit trees are proposed. The applicant is also proposing to plant two pear trees in the planter strip in the public right-of-way in front of Lot 11. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: • Conditional use permit for the re-emergence of three parcels previously merged by a structure; (C.S. '25.28.030,6) • Design review for three new single-family residences; (C.S. 25.57.010) and • Special permits for attached garages on Lots 9 and 11 (C.S. 25.28.035,a). OA Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages Summary Table PROPOSED LOT 9 PROPOSED LOT 10 PROPOSED LOT 11 ALLOWED/REQ'D (LOT A) (LOT B) (LOT C) SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 34'-7" 30'-8" 34'-7" 21'-1" (2nd flr): 55'-1" 36'-8" 54'-7" 21'-1" Side (left): 4'-0" 9'-6" 4'-0" 4'-0" (right): 7'-0" 4'-6" T-0" 4'-0" Rear(lstflr): 16'-0" 33'-5" 16'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 20'-0" 33'-5" 201-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,625 SF 2,125 SF 1,801 SF 2402 SF 27 % 35% 30 % 40% 2,733 SF 3,422 SF 2,799 SF 3022 SF 0.46 FAR 0.57 FAR 0.47 FAR 0.50 FAR (Lots A an C) FAR: 3422 SF 0.57 FAR (Lot B) * 1 covered/ (10' x 20') 2 covered/ (20' x 20') 1 covered/ (10' x 20') 1 covered/ (10' x 20') 1 uncovered / (9' x 20') 1 uncovered / (9' x 20') 1 uncovered / (9' x 20') 1 uncovered / (9' x 20') (Lots A and C) Parking: Attached ** Detached Attached ** 2 covered/ (20' x 20') 1 uncovered / (9' x 20') (Lot B) # of bedrooms: 4 5 4 --- Height: 29'-10" 28'-5" 27'-5" 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies complies see code * Difference in maximum allowable FAR on Lots A and C compared to Lot B is due to the proposed attached garages- the code allows a 400 SF bonus for floor area for a design that includes a detached garage. ** Special permit required for an attached garage. 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages Staff Comments: Please see the Tables A, B and C at the end of the staff report for a comparison of previous submittals with the current proposal on the site. Staff would note that the previous proposal on this site included a construction staging plan showing that Lots A and B would be developed concurrently and Lot C would be left vacant and used for construction staging and equipment and material storage. The applicant states that based on comments he heard from neighbors during the private developer and neighbor meetings in February 2002 (see March 18, 2003 letter from Mark Hudak), developing all three lots at the same time is preferable to the neighbors because it will reduce the length of time of construction on the block. Therefore, the applicant current proposal is to build all three dwellings at the same time. The consulting arborist from Mayne Tree Company and the City Arborist have reviewed the new construction staging plan proposed by the applicant and agree that it will not violate the recommended tree protection measures. However, the new construction plan will require all construction vehicles and deliveries to make use of the public right-of-way on Drake Avenue, including some loading and unloading. Conditions of approval require that no construction equipment or materials shall be stored on the public right-of-way and no construction worker vehicle parking shall be allowed in the public right-of-way. Design Review Study Meeting: This application was heard before the Planning Commission as a design review study item on April 14, 2002 (4.14.03 Planning Commission Minutes). At that meeting, the Commission commented on the project and moved to place it on the regular action calendar. To address the Commission's the applicant has also submitted an additional arborist report from Mayne Tree Company, dated April 28, 2003 (3 pages), a construction and demolition plan dated April 28, 2003 (8 % x 11 letter and reduced site plan) and a root protection zone fencing plan dated May 20, 2003 (8 %2 x 11 sheet). Listed below are the comments made by the Commission, with the applicant's response immediately following: • Commission's comment ➢ Applicant's response • applicant may want to consider adding a window with a bit more glass at the second story of the middle house; ➢ the applicant has submitted revised plans (sheet A-4 on Lot 10, date stamped April 25, 2003) showing that the right side and left side second story windows on the front elevation of the house on Lot 10 have been increased from two 2' x 3' windows to three 2' x 3' windows. • applicant may also want to provide a comment from Mayne arborist on the report by the Coate arborist; ➢ not provided by the applicant. • need to see a demolition and construction staging plan, including timing, equipment storage and delivery paths to assess whether building all three houses at once could potentially damage the Redwood trees on Lot 9; 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages ➢ the demolition and construction plan, dated April 28, 2003 (8 %Z x 11 letter and reduced site plan), explains the order of demolition for the buildings on site and that all three houses will be built at the same time; the root protection fencing for the Redwoods shall be in place before any demolition or construction on the site and that fencing shall not be altered or removed until demolition and the final phase of construction on all three lots is completed; no construction equipment, materials, or workers will violate the root protection fencing barrier at any time and all construction staging, materials delivery and storage will occur elsewhere on the site and in the public right-of-way; the applicant notes that the largest equipment will be employed at the beginning of the demolition and construction process; the Mayne arborist has reviewed this plan and concluded that it will not impact the health of the trees (see conditions # 10 and 28 ). • would like the City Arborist to provide a report comparing the information in the Mayne and Coate arborist reports, City Arborist should feel free to assess the site as if there were no proposed residences and ask for clarification/elaboration on the protection measures proposed from the applicant's arborist; aside from providing evaluation about which mitigation measures will help to protect the trees with the houses in their current location, would be helpful to know if the proposed siting of the houses will or will not harm the trees; ➢ the root protection zone established by the consulting arborist and indicated on the sheet date stamped May 20, 2003, is an area along the drip line of trees that is at no point closer than 4 feet to any Redwood Tree trunk; the root protection fencing will be installed prior to any demolition or construction on the site and will not be adjusted or removed at any time during the demolition or construction phases. The protective fencing will be in place until the final phase of construction, when the driveway for Lot 10 is laid and landscaping begins on the site; the Mayne arborist recommends that the fencing be inspected by the consulting arborist and approved by the City Arborist before any demolition or construction on site (see condition # 28); ➢ the driveway on Lot 10 will be paved with interlocking pavers, installed with the minimum 9 3/8-inch cut and including a 6-inch base, 1 inch of sand, 2 3/8-inch pavers and a structural fabric at the base; the Mayne arborist has been out to the site to hand dig along the proposed driveway path. His investigation revealed that there are only 2 roots in this area that would have to be cut to install the driveway and he concludes that cutting these roots will not compromise the health of the Redwood trees; the Mayne arborist recommends that an arborist be on site to monitor all grading and to advise in the event than any roots over 3 inches in diameter are encountered; the arborist notes on page three of his report that if more significant roots are found during grading, it may be necessary to move the driveway (see conditions # 29 and 30); ➢ the proposed foundation for the north side of the dwelling and garage on Lot 9 and for the northeast side of the dwelling on Lot 10 is a pier and grade beam foundation; this type of foundation allows for flexibility in the placement of the piers along the grade beam. The beam will not be any deeper than 6 inches below grade, however the piers must be sunk to a depth of at least 16 inches. The Mayne arborist has been on -site to conduct preliminary digging for tree roots. He did not encounter any roots in his surface investigation, but expects that roots will be encountered at a more significant depth and that the piers could have negative impact on the deeper roots. He recommends that the upper 18 inches of the pier holes should be hand dug and that holes should be relocated to avoid any roots encountered that are over 3 inches in diameter (see conditions # 29 and 31); ➢ the applicant is proposing a 6' to Thigh fence along the property line between Lots 9 and 10. The 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages Mayne arborist recommends that the holes for the fence posts be hand dug and that the posts be relocated if any roots are encountered that are larger than 3 inches in diameter (see conditions # 29 and 34); ➢ the Mayne arborist notes in his report that in his experience, damage can occur to tree roots during the landscaping phase, which would occur after the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees is removed. He recommends that the applicant submit a detailed landscape plan to show electricity, irrigation, retaining walls, etc. for review and approval by the City prior to the commencement of any landscaping on site and that a licensed arborist be on site to monitor the work (see conditions # 29 and 33); ➢ the Mayne arborist recommends a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwoods on Lot 10, including deep root fertilization starting in May 2003, and an inspection of tree health one year after the completion of construction and every two years thereafter (see condition # 34); and ➢ The City Arborist has met with the applicant and the Mayne arborist several times since the April 14, 2003, study hearing. The City Arborist has reviewed the information supplied by Mayne, as well as the Barrie Coate arborist report submitted to the Commission at the April 14, 2003 study hearing. In a memo dated May 20, 2003, the City Arborist comments on the Coate report and evaluates the proposed project and protection and mitigation measures proposed by Mayne Tree Company. Project History: In March 2002 an application was submitted for the property at 1537 Drake Avenue which proposed a conditional use permit for the re-emergence of three lots previously merged by a structure and design review for THREE, new two-story, single-family residences with detached garages. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared to address the impacts of the emergence and development of the three new parcels on the site. The applicant took the project to environmental scoping and design review study meetings on April 8, June 10, and June 24, 2002. At the June 24, 2002, meeting the project was referred to a design review consultant. The applicant met with the consultant on July 11, 2002 . The applicant decided to withdraw the application for the development of three houses on the three re-emerging lots in August 2002. The applicant resubmitted in August 2002 with a request for design review on only TWO dwellings, proposed on Lots 9 and 10. The applicant proposed to leave Lot 11 vacant and to use it for construction staging and material storage. However, Lot 11 was still a re-emerging lot and the Mitigated Negative Declaration assumed that Lot 11 would be fully developed to the maximum allowable floor area. The Commission denied the project by a tie vote (3 aye-3 nay -1 abstention) at the action hearing in November 2002. The project was appealed to the City Council and on January 6, 2003 the Council referred the project back to the Planning Commission with direction. The applicant resubmitted the project on March 28, 2003. The current application includes designs for THREE dwellings, one on each of the re-emerging lots. The applicant is also proposing to build all three dwellings at the same time. The project was reviewed by the Commission for design review study on April 14, 2003 and set for action on the next available agenda once the applicant submitted the requested information. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendums 1 and 2: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project. The initial study for the proposed project showed that there would be potentially significant impacts without mitigations, to the Redwood trees on site, to the sewer and water C' Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages systems in the neighborhood, and to the noise and traffic flow and parking during construction. The initial study and addendum show that with mitigations proposed, the potentially significant effects caused by this project can be reduced to acceptable levels. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion based on the Initial Study, facts in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and Planning Commission observation and experience are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental impact. The mitigation measures in the Initial Study will be incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval. A summary of the Declaration and Addendum follows and the full document is included as part of the staff report: Redwood Trees The significant Redwood trees will remain on site with the proposed application. Construction traffic and proposed building structures may have a potentially significant impact on the trees. Mitigation measures previously proposed by the applicant to protect the significant Redwood trees on site include using Lot 11 for equipment staging and storage during construction on Lots 9 and 10. The applicant has since revised the project so that all three lots can be developed at the same time. Addendums 1 and 2 to the Mitigated Negative Declaration address these changes. In a report from Mayne Tree Company, dated April 28, 2003, the applicant proposes as mitigation for the new proposal that root protection fencing shall be installed around the Redwood trees, in a location approved by a licensed arborist and the City Arborist; this fencing will be in place prior to any demolition or construction on the site and will not be relocated or removed until such an action is approved by the City Arborist and the Building Department. The applicant is also proposing to use a pier and grade beam foundation for sections of the dwellings on Lots 9 and 10, pier holes for the foundation will be hand dug to a depth of 18 inches and a final foundation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department and City Arborist before a building permit is issued. The applicant is required to submit a full landscape plan, including irrigation, fencing, and soil deposits, to the City Arborist for approval and all fence post holes in the root protection zone for the Redwood trees will be hand dug. The developer will have a certified arborist on site during all grading and digging on site and the arborist will submit weekly reports to the City Arborist to confirm that protection and mitigation measures are being followed. Finally, the developer is required to follow a 5-year maintenance plan, including reports by a licensed arborist, to address the health of the Redwood trees and the developer shall bear the penalty fees if the trees do not survive the 5-year period. Water Service The existing water pipe servicing the two proposed houses on Lots 9, 10 and 11 is old and has experienced build-up so that water pressure to the site is insufficient. The proposed application may have a potentially significant impact on the water pressure. Mitigation proposed by the applicant for the water pressure to the three new houses includes replacing the existing 2-inch water pipe with a new 2-inch copper pipe, for a distance from its connection to the 2 inch line on Bernal Avenue and through the rear easement along Lots 9, 10 and 11, to a point ending at the southeastern property corner of Lot 9. Sewer Service There is an existing 6-inch sewer main located in the center of the street that serves the properties on Drake Avenue. There are four properties down slope at the end of the sewer main, 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue. These four properties have a history of 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages sewage backup problems. This is caused by the fact that the properties have plumbing fixtures below the man -hole level on Drake and by the shallow slope of the sewer main in the street. Recently the city replaced the sewer laterals to these four houses, but protection against possible back-up caused by foreign objects in the sewer main would require the private property owners to install back flow valves on their sewer laterals. A mitigation proposed by the applicant to address the sewer issue is to install backflow prevention devices on the four properties that are now subject to sewage backup. This will reduce the impact of the development on the existing sewer service to a less than significant level. In addition, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses the City of Burlingame's intent to complete by summer of 2003 work on a sewer rehabilitation project in the vicinity of 1537 Drake Avenue. This project will involve an upstream bypass of the incoming flow of sewage from the manhole at the end of the cul-de-sac on the 1500 block of Drake Avenue. The sewer system on Drake will also be replaced with a new and larger system. The rehabilitation project is expected to greatly improve sewer service and to help prevent sewage back-up problems in the area. Access, Parking, and Noise During Construction There is no vehicle turn -around area at the termination of Drake Avenue. The construction vehicles required for the proposed project may create a temporary impact on public safety, access, and circulation patterns during demolition and construction, including on -street parking, unless specific measures are taken to address these issues. In addition, the demolition and construction for the proposed project will create a temporary potentially significant impact to the ambient noise levels in the neighborhood. Mitigation proposed by the applicant for the noise and traffic impacts include: that all three houses shall be built concurrently to minimize the length of construction time; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends; there shall be no construction equipment or material storage or construction worker parking in the street in the City right- of-way during demolition or construction. Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the mitigated negative declaration (ND 525-P) and addendum, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission must fmd 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages 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. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roofline, facade, exterior finish materials 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for a conditional use permit, design review, and special permits, and including the conditions representing mitigation for the mitigated negative declaration (in italics below) and any conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners wish to add. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. The resolution with conditions shall be recorded with the property to insure implementation of the required mitigations. Please note that the conditions below that are in italics reflect the mitigation measures taken from the mitigated negative declaration. If approved, these conditions will also be placed on the building permit: 0 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages 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.5; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building or the tree protection plan 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; 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 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 City Arborist's 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 haulingpermitted 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 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages the street in the public right-of-way during demolition or construction on the site; H. 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]], 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 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages 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 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 the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 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 Lot 9 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified Arborist, and the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to and approved by the City Arborist prior to any demolition or construction on site; that the established root protection fencing shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction; 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; 29. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any grading or digging activities, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, grading for the driveway on Lot 10, and during the digging of the fence post holes for the fence between Lots 9 and 10; 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 are being met; inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately; 30. 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 of at least 90 %; 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 consulting arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; and that if at any time the consulting 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; 31. that all pier holes for the foundations on Lot 9 and 10 shall be hand dug to a depth of 18 inches; and 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages 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 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the consulting 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; 33. that the applicant shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to any landscaping or fence installation on the site, including irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; 34. that the post holes shall be hand -dug 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; and 35. that the developer shall be responsible for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees on Lot 9, including deep root fertilizing beginning in May 2003, and including the recommendations of the April 28, 2003 Mayne Tree Company report; and that the developer shall submit a licensed arborist report to the Planning Department to address the health of the trees one year after the completion of the construction and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; the developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 5 years after construction is fmalled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the 5-year period. Erika Lewit c: James Chu, Designer 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages Changes for all three tables are shaded. Comparison Table for Lot A SETBACKS 1537 Drake Avenue PROPOSED LOT 9 PROPOSED LOT 9 PROPOSED LOT 9 (March 2002) Original (November 2003) Last (March 13, 2003) Current submittal reviewed submittal I submittal Front (lst flr): no change (2nd flr): no change Side (left): no change (right): no change Rear (1st flr): 16'-0" no change no change (2nd flr): 20'-0" no change no change Lot Coverage: FAR: 1 covered/ (10' x 20') 1 uncovered / (9' x 20') Parking: I Detached # of bedrooms: 4 4 4 L 4 Height: x5 no change DH Envelope: complies complies complies 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages Comparison Table for Lot 10 PROPOSED LOT 10 PROPOSED LOT 10 PROPOSED LOT 10 (March 2002) Original (November 2003) Last (March 13, 2003) Current submittal reviewed submittal submittal SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 22'-8" (2nd flr): 28'-8" Side (left): 9'-6" no change no change (right): 4'-6" no change no change Rear (1st flr): 44'-5" (2nd flr): 44'-5" 2,125 SF no change no change Lot Coverage: 35% no change no change 3,422 SF no change no change FAR: 0.57 FAR no change no change 2 covered/ (20' x 20') no change no change 1 uncovered / (9' x 20) Parking: Detached # of bedrooms: 5 no change no change Height: 28'-5" no change no change FDH Envelope: complies complies complies 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration; Conditional Use Permit for the Re-emergence of Three Lots, 1537 Drake Avenue Design Review for Three New Dwellings, and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages Comparison Table for Lot 11 16 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingAme.org CITT APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION b- Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit'Variance. Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: APPLICANT City/State/Zip (h): ARCMTECT/DESIGNER Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): (fl= PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY OWNER Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. �Ie� FN55�;, AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is truqce e best of my knowledge and belief.Applicant's signa Date.I know about the ation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date r�Z Date submitted: NECEIVED AUG 2 12002 CITY OF BURLINUAMt-' PLANNING DEPT. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 Vice -Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to ce this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice Z 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent . he Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. Thisconcluded at 9:28 P. 12. 1609 RA1XrON AVENUE, ZON R-1— APPLICATION FOR DE N REVIEW FOR A SECOND STOR ADDITION (PHIL HY , JPH DESIGN, APPLICAW AND ARCHITECT; SEAN AND ANPkEA CUTRIGHT PRO RTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED ROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN X LR Lewit briefly pre"tedeproject description. Theo were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Boj 's opened the public comment. P 1 Hyland, designer, was present to answe uestions. The Commis ' n asked if there was a wall exte ing beyond the chimney on the right side he designer noted that ly the eaves extended beyond t chimney. There were no other comments om the floor and the publ' hearinia was closed. The Commission had the followi7S01*crn oncerns about the project: • concerned by the bulkin both side elevations, design appears oxy; • designer should inves 'gate ways to add articulation along the sid elevations, perhaps corbels and a "bump -out" at that evation; • provide details the plans about the existing and propos windows, will they all match, are they, true divided h t wood windows, what type of trim is oposed; and • add some t er elements to the landscape plan to scr n the proposed second story, taller trees c e added at a front; taller shrubs can be added alo the sides. C. Brownri made a motion place this item on the c nsent calendar at a time w/FAR ed revisions have bee made and plan checked. The motion s seconded by C. Vistica. Co ent on motion: this is a modest addi 'on, far below the maximum allod the simple designmatches the existing house. Vice -Chair Bojues called for a vote oy he motion to place this item on the c sent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The mo on passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. eighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:36 p.m. 13. 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) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description, noting a letter submitted from a neighbor at 1561 Drake Avenue that included and arborist report from Mr. Coate for the site. Commission asked staff to clarify the discrepancy between the FAR totals provided in the applicant's March 18, 2003 letter and those provided in the staff report. Staff noted that the applicant's totals were probably taken from the designer's calculations, but that staff always performs their own calculations, staff totals are the numbers that should be referenced by the Commission. Commission asked for further clarification of the City's responsibilities concerning the 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 Redwood trees on the site. The City Attorney advised the Commission that tonight's public hearing was to give direction on design and no action would take place on the project, therefore the Commission could request additional information from the applicant, neighbors, or City staff. Vice -Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, attorney representing 1537 Drake Avenue, was present to answer questions. He commented that based on the City Council hearing, he felt the environmental issues concerning the trees, sewer, and traffic had all been adequately addressed by the environmental document, but noted that he had not yet reviewed the Coate arborist report. He went on to note that the developer and designer met with neighbors on two occasions in an attempt to design a project agreeable to both parties. A comprise was arrived at, resulting in the reduction of FAR on Lots 9 and 11, additional landscaping on Lots 10 and 11, including installing two mature 10'-15' trees on Lot 10, and an increase in the front setback on Lot 10. He believed the neighbors wanted to insure that the color and trim scheme shown in the rendering were followed and to have all three properties developed at the same time to reduce them impact of construction on the neighborhood, developer is agreeable to both of these requests. Mr. Hudak noted that the applicant had not been able to address all of the neighbor's concerns and that the project had already been to a design review consultant and received a positive recommendation. Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue; Janey Ochse, 1512 Drake Avenue; Ann and Mark Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, and David Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue, had the following concerns: the artist rendering is deceiving because it is not to scale, this is not what the houses will look like from the street or from neighbors properties; biggest concern is the Redwood trees, both the Mayne and Coate reports clearly state that the project, as proposed, will endanger the trees, the root protection area will be encroached upon with the proposed placement of the residences on Lots 9 and 10 and the driveway; the 3-year responsibility of the developer for the health of the trees is not long enough, the trees can take up to 10 years to die as a result of damage to the roots; still have an issue with the parking provided, do not feel a single car garage provides enough parking for a new, 4-bedroom house; pleased to see that FAR has been reduced on Lots 9 and 11, but all the houses are still approximately 30 feet tall and the middle house has not been reduced in FAR at all, these homes will not fit into a neighborhood where the average height of residences is 21 feet; the meetings between the developer and neighbors have done some good, but more progress needs to be made, does Commission have the authority to appoint a task force comprised of some Commissioners, some neighbors, and the developer, in order to try and reach a compromise outside of a public hearing forum. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: if all three lots are developed at the same time, concerned about how the Redwood trees be affected; report submitted by arborist Coate does not state that the arborist actually visited the site, would like to have the City Arborist compare the Mayne and Coate arborist reports; concerned that the Coate report differs from the recommendations given by the Mayne report; would like to compliment the designer and developer on a proposal that provides variation among three new homes and for reducing the FAR on two of the lots; not concerned about the design of the proposed houses, the proposed heights are all near 30 feet maximum, but that is only a tiny portion of the roof ridge, the rest of the roof lines are varied, feel the houses will enhance the neighborhood and that having a maximum FAR house between two smaller FAR houses is a typical pattern in this neighborhood; disappointed that the developer and neighbors were not able to come to an agreement; can the City Attorney provide advice on whether the suggested task force is a possibility; and feel that this public forum is the proper place to discuss the project and to insure that a decision is reached in a timely fashion for both parties involved. The City Attorney noted that at this stage in a project, it is difficult for a Commissioner to serve as an unbiased mediator because they are already in a decision -making position, also is the problem that one or 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2003 two Commissioners serving on a task force do not necessarily represent the opinion of the entire Commission; if a mediation route is advised by the Commission, a professional mediator such as the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center is probably the best solution. In further discussion, the Commission had the following concerns about the project: • would like the City Arborist to provide a report comparing the information in the Mayne and Coate arborist reports, City Arborist should feel free to assess the site as if there were no proposed residences and ask for clarification/elaboration on the protection measures proposed from the applicant's arborist; aside from providing evaluation about which mitigation measures will help to protect the trees with the houses in their current location, would be helpful to know if the proposed siting of the houses will or will not harm the trees; • applicant may also want to provide a comment from Mayne arborist on the report by the Coate arborist; • need to see a demolition and construction staging plan, including timing, equipment storage and delivery paths to assess whether building all three houses at once could potentially damage the Redwood trees on Lot 9; and • applicant may want to consider adding a window with a bit more glass at the second story of the middle house. Vice -Chair Bojues made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested information and revisions had been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Vice -Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:38 p.m. PLANNER PORT Re ' w of City Council regeeting of April 7, 2003. CP Monroe eviewed the actions of thular ouncil meeting of April 7, 2003. lllow up discussion of J 'nt City Council/Planning Commissi meeting of April 5, 2003 isclussion concluded that ' June the Commission would revie he priorities for the FY 2003-2004 program and discuss ho the tasks were to be assigned to vario s subcommittees. It was not that that the ont Plan would be co ing to the commission in the June/J v time frame. T FYI — arc hitec al detail changes to approved desi review at 1108 Cortez Ave e Commission revie d the request to remove the acorn pe ' ent trim on the two window n the front of the house and over t e door at the rear. It was noted th the trim was added to ad ss design concerns expressed by t commission during design review, w the applicant doesn't want install them, for cost or convene e, or whatever, so makes a request b ed on the fact that other hou s do not have such trim. Commissi� also expressed a concern about the orner board width, thought at requested the applicant during 4edsign review to provide a wider come oard, should check. If the a licant wishes to make these proposed changes they should bring the ite orward on the regular action c endar, with complete plans and a clearer set of reasons for the changes an idea of how the design obj ecties of the initial review will be met by the change. 13 v.. ra.. vJ auu ay..J craa VJVJOJYY YJ dAiPC IFLM CArbX1S %AJ WjUUZ 011!016 Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESfABLlSHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR" S LICENSE NO.276793 GRADUAL FOItL•STER CERTIFIED ARRORISTS PT.ST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS April 28, 2003 535 RRAGATO ROAD, STF. A RtCHARD L. HUNTINGTON SAN CART LA, CA 94070-6228 PRFSIDENT TELEPHONE: (650) 593.4400 KEVIN R. KIELTY FACSIMILE: (650) 5934443 OPf:RATIONS MANAGER EMAIL: info cCi M8Ynetree_WFn Mr. Otto Miller Miller Development P.O. Box 121 Burlingame, CA 94010 Re:1537 Drake Avenue, Burlingame, Lots 9,10,11 Dear Mr. Miller: On April 23, 2003, we met at the above site. The purpose of this visit was to determine root depth as this might relate to the proposed garage and house on Lot 9 and driveway on Lot 10_ 'The proposed garage and house are to have a pier and grade beam foundation. I was informed it will go on the tree side of the garage and the house. 1 was also informed the maximum depth will be 6 inches below the surface or less. The garage is to be 12'A feet from the tree trunk and 10 feet from the root flare and the house 12 to 14 feet away. To determine if roots would be encountered during grade beam excavation, I used a narrow 16 inch shovel and made at continuous slice down at least 8 inches, 12 1/i feet from the tree trunk. This slice went from the edge of the existing house 30 feet east towards the sidewalk, well past the redwoods nearest the house. I did not find w.y roots during this inspection. The only root/burl I found was a 2 foot diameter round section at the east end of the 30 foot tree inspection line. Digging around this burl I only found it connected on the south side away from the redwoods. This burl can just be dug out. In conclusion, the grade beam will have no impacts to these redwoods, but the 16 inch piers could impact roots. To avoid these roots, have the arborist and engineer on site during the drilling/hand digging to move piers so as to avoid roots. The upper 18 inches of the pier holes should be hand dug and moved to avoid any discovered roots 3 inches in diameter and larger. 04/29/03 TUE IU:44 FAX 6505934443 MAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO 10003 Miller 4-?-&03, Pg. 2 ecause the rade beani will be I did not inspect for roots trees than from the existing foundation.gRoot c further away from the are either deeper or have been deflected by this existing foundation. The next area of potential construction impact is the proposed driveway of Lot 10. The edge of this interlocking paver style driveway will be about 4 feet north of the three redwoods nearest the existing house and about 6 feet from the two redwoods on the street_ In Mr. Otto Miner's letter to the City of April 28, 2003, Item 2 states that the interlocking paver driveway requires a minimum of 10 inches of excavation: 6 Inches of base rock, 2 inches of sand and 2 inches of pavers. The 6 inches of base rock, placed on a fabric and compacted to 90°o, should not significantly compact the soil over the lower. roots. To determine if this proposed driveway excavation would impact roots, I probed down at least 10 inches from the existing walkway between the redwoods and the existing house 30 feet eastward towards the sidewalk. I unearthed 2 roots; one is a 2 inch diameter root On the surface and the other is a 4 inch diameter root about 5 inches deep. Cutting these two roots at this time is not significant to tree health or support. The arborist, however, should be present during grading to monitor and advise if any roots over 3 inches in diameter are encountered. When healthy roots remain below a driveway, there is always a chance of uplift, however, I think this would not occur for many years. Due to the lack of roots in the upper 10 inches, the proposed driveway will have little or no impact on the trees. It is also proposed to install a 6 foot tall fence along the property line of Lots 9 and 10. Hand dig down for the posts to avoid roots 3 inches and larger. A clamshell post hand digger can be used. Move any holes if roots of 3 inches or larger are encountered. This fence is proposed to be constructed at the end of the construction phase and after tree protection fencing has been removed. Tree protection should be installed prior to house demolition/construction. Install fencing at or near the dripline of the trees along the south and north sides from the existing house to the sidewalk. Fencing on the south side should be at 11 feet from the trunk which should allow the proposed construction to proceed. Install fencing on the eastside along the sidewalk and 2 feet away from the existing house_ The arborist can help with this. The area within the fencing is off-limits to all demolition/construction activity. I recommend removing the existing sidewalks and patio within the dripline of ,-the-trees by hand prior. to protective fence installation since this will. not impact the trees - This way, no access is needed until fencing is removed_ Basal sprouts can also be removed at this time. Miller 4-28-03, Pg. 3 The Fax from the City of April 23, 2003, requested a comparison with the driveway on the south side of Lot 10 versus placing it on the north side. The driveway on the south side was previously discussed and it was correlated with minimal impact. Putting the driveway on the north side would require moving the house 5 to 6 feet closer to the redwoods. I do not think there would be any benefit from this charge. The protective fencing shown on the site plan should not be moved without the project arborists's approval and/or supervision. This fencing should not require moving until the proposed driveway for lot 10 is to be installed. At this time, the project arborist should be present for fence re -positioning and to observe grading. This would be more important when removing the raised area north of the redwoods by the street. If significant roots are found, it may be recommended to move the driveway northward. The area outside of the initial protective fencing position is available to be used for parking and all other construction activity. It has been my experience that after construction landscaping, Le_ installation of irrigation, electricity, retaining walls, etc. can have more impact to trees than 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 recommend a 5 year fertilizing program. I recommend deep root fertilizing all 5 redwoods in May, 2003, and continuing annually for 5 years. The first application is recommended in all exposed areas of the root zone. This is to treat as much of the tree area as possible. The fertilizer most recommended is 4 pounds if a 22-14-14 mix in 100 gallons of water, injected into the root zone using hydraulic spray equipment. Having the trees inspected for any changes one year after the completion of constructionis recommended and then every two years. I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices- „►�,,�.. ly p`�! Sincerely, ��.• NUHr�' No. WGO1I9 t. Richard L. Huntington Certified Arhoiist WC #0114 bt1tl34UU435 MILL.ERDEVELOPhENT PAGE 81 �o *40 •• a Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR" S LICENSE NO.276793 GRADUATE FORESTER CERTIFIED ARBORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHAAD L_ HUNTINGTON rR 3XWDrr KEVIN R_ KIELTY OFaA7) M MANAGER Mr. James Chu Chu Design and Engineering. Inc. 38 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Re: 1537 Drake. Burlingame Dear Mr. Chu: February 4, 2002 535 BRAGATO ROAD. STE A SAN CARLA6. CA 94070-6221 TELEPHONE: 050) 593-4400 FACS)MILE: 16S0) 5934443 EMAIL- in"nw ncu=.caw On January 28, 2002, 1 met with you and Otto Miller at the above referenced site to discuss potential impacts to the trees from construction. Also discussed were ways to minimize these impacts. As discussed, keeping standard spread footings at least 15 feet away from any of the redwoods would be ideal, but these distances would limit the proposed footprints. Due to this problem, we discussed designing a pier and grade beam footing on the tree skies of the house. Footings that extend away from a tree significantly reduce potential root impacts. We discussed hand digging for piers to identify roots and move piers as needed to avoid cutting any root over 3 k ches in diameter. We also discussed the depth of the grade beams and the fact OW N only a 3 or 4 inch cut is needed, the beams can be 6 to 8 feet from a redwood. If roots 3 inches and over are encountered and need attention, have the arborist inspect them first_ We also discussed the health and structure of the 18.8 inch diameter yew tree north of the redwoods. The tree appears healthy, but the limbs are heavy and one has broken. These trees do not prune well due to their structure and since it is Important to reduce risks, I recommend removal. 1 believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Richard L. Huntington Certified Arborlst WC d►0119 RLH:dcr 5�N � HUpT�'' x = No. WC0119 RECEIVED CC: Otto Miller MAR - 5 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I e�ST up.#m, MITIGATING MEASURES. FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ON EXISTING TREES SECTION I INTRODUCTION It is an established fact that construction around existing trees will impact t h e trees to some degree. The degree of impact is largely predicated on the condition of-4he tree(s) before the construction activity begins- It is therefore important to inspect all trees prior to any construction activity to develop a "tree protection program" based on the species, size, condition and expected impact. A Certified Arborist (International Society of Arboriculture) is suggested for this work. The local University of California Extension or County Farm Advisors Office has . the names of local certified arborists. SECTION I I SITE PREPARATION All existing trees shall be fenced within, at, or outside the dripline (foliar spread) of the tree using the following formula: Five inches in distance from the trunk for every inch in trunk diameter, measured 4-5 feet above t h e average ground level. Example: a 24 inch diameter tree would have a fence erected 10 feet from the base of the tree (24 x 5 = 120/ 12 = 10). The fencing should not interfere with actual construction, but is intended to redirect unnecessary traffic, and to protect limbs and roots. No storage of materials, unnecessary trenching, grading or compaction shall be allowed within the dripline of the trees. The fence should be a minimum of four feet high, made of pig wire, snow fence, or cyclone, with steel stakes or pipes as posts. If the fence is within the dripline of the trees, the foliar fringe outside the fence shall be raised to offset the chance of limb breakage from construction equipment encroaching within the driplinc- All contractors, subcontractors and other personnel shall be warned that encroachment within the fenced area is forbidden without the consent of the certified arborist on the job. This includes, but is not limited to, storage of lumber and other materials, disposed -of paints, solvents or other noxious materials, parked cars, grading equipment and other heavy equipment. - The temporary fence shall be maintained until the landscape contractor enters the job and commences landscape construction. RECEIVED MAYNE TREE EXPERT COMPANY JUN 1 7 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. SECTION LLI GRADINGIEXCAVATING All grading plans that specify grading within the dripline of any tree, o r within the distance from the trunk as outlined in SECTION II when said distance is outside the dripline, shall first be reviewed's by the certified arborist. Provisions for aeration, drainage, pruning, tunneling beneath roots, root pruning, or other necessary actions to protect the trees, shall be outlined by the arborist. If trenching is necessary within the area as described above, said trenching shall be undertaken by hand labor. All roots Z inches 'or larger shall be tunnelled and smaller roots shall be cut smoothly to the side of the trench. The side of the.jhe trench should be draped immediately with two layers of untreated burlap to a depth of 3 feet from the surface. The burlap shall be soaked nightly and left in place until the trench is backfilled to the original level. The arborist shall examine the trench prior to backfilling to ascertain the number and size of roots cut, and to suggest further remedial repairs. SECTION IV REMEDIAL REPAIRS. PENALTIES The arborist on the job shall have the responsibility of observing all ongoing activities that may affect the trees, and prescribing necessary remedial work to insure the health and stability of said trees. This includes, but is not limited to, all arborist activities specified in SECTIONS I, I1 and IIL In addition, pruning, with types and techniques as outlined in the "Pruning Guidelines" (1995) of the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be prescribed as necessary. Fertilizing, mulching, aeration, irrigation, drainage, pest control and other activities shall be prescribed according to the tree needs, local site requirements and State Agricultural Pest Control laws. All specifications shall be in writing. For a list of licensed pest control operators or advisors, consult the local County Agricultural Commissioners Office. Penalties, bas d on the cost of remedial repairs and the appraised values provided in tt% Evaluation Guide published by the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be assessed for damages to the trees. SEC`n0N V FINAL INSPECTION Upon completion of the project, the arborist shall review all work undertaken that impacted the existing trees. Special attention shall be given to cuts and fills, compaction, drainage, pruning and future remedial work. The arborist should submit a final report in writing outlining the ongoing remedial care following the final inspection. MAYNE TREE EXPERT COMPANY RECEIVED JUN 1 7 2002 CITY OF 13URLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. . ____. r "%A- UL April 28, 2003 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attn: Erika Lewit Re: 1537 Drake Avenue Dear Erika. 1) Please be advised that I propose to remove the existing buildings in the following order, (after protective fencing has been installed around Redwoods): 1) 2 car detached garage, 2) 2 car carport, 3) laundry room, 4) one bedroom apartment, 5) main house, 6) cabana at rear of house, 7) potting shed at Southwest comer of the property and 8) pool. Also, prior to installing the protective fence around the Redwoods, we will remove, by hand, the concrete that has been poured around the trees, under recommendation of Richard Huntington of Mayne Tree Expert Company, and approved by Steve Porter, City of Burlingame Arborist. 2) Regading the interlocking pavers on lot 10; the minimum for installation is a 9 3/8 inch cut, with a 6 inch base, 1 inch of sand, and 2 3/8 inchs for pavers, with a structural fabric at base. 3) All three homes will be built at the same time, as per the neighbors' request. 4) The largest equipment will be used initially on the demo and foundation excavation. Then concrete trucks will be used during the foundation pours. Then, lumber trucks, roofing materials, and sheetrock. All these vehicles and materials will be delivered or utilized outside the tree protection fencing that has been approved by Richard Huntington of Mayne Tree Expert Company and Steve Porter, the Burlingame City Arborist. We will use the property and the street to facilitate these activities. Sincerely, wMilixer 04/28/2003 14:26 6503408435 MILLERDEVELOPMENT PAGE 03 c00 I s a a 0 r 1 .., ..,...-........�wrri.+� env odor . � W- N n...�.�r.A.LOT .......... rr.in'�..++. s.w �. I ��f4f7rl•ri v� uE'; �:."�...:. Lw i"..°'; 4�11.q FRom ' DES I CA l INTERLOCK _In1LLLMVL VtLUf'MtN 1 FAX PICI. : 4153898700 PAGE 04 Apr. 28 200; 01:51PM P1 El I' X 6' REOW000 OR PAIESSURE TREATED O.f HE=AOER OIsxEN wTEIIIOCKMVO MYERa SANO BED wG COURSE (i' Awj AGGRIEGA Tj USE TO REQUIIRE'O CkEprH COAVAC TED SUB MSE 2' X 4' STAKES ON 4FT. CENTERS NATIVE SOIL 7. fj OLSEN M/TEAMOG(NMO IAHIJq MORTAR MEDDNG TO SUIT SAND BEDdNG COURSE (1- Aux) _ TURF COMPAC TED SUBS BASE ' . \ 11 1c j�:% NATIVE SOIL NOTES ............ I. EDGE TREATMENT SHOULD BE AS STRAIGHT AS POSSIBLE TO COMPLIMENT THE AUGNME14T OF THE PAVING STONES. 2. ALL EDGE TREATMENT MUST BE VERTICAL TO ALLOW THE PAVERS A CLOSE FIT. J. WHEN NEW CONCRETE IS PLANNED ADJACENT TO PAVING STONES, THE RELIEF TOOL SELECTED SHOULD BE AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE (114 INCH), K UCH ENA6LES THE STONES A TIGHT FI T AND AFFORDS AESTHETIC SIMILA171Ty OF THE SAND JOINTS. SAN JUAN CAPIS TRANO, CA • iEL. (714) 728-0415 • FAX (714) 728-0540 N Q r- m N m i in O Ln RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME n, nmmmir nFPT. 5—�6—c5`3 z w r' n.2 CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL, THOMPSON & HORN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 216 PARK ROAD, POST OFFICE BOX 513 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94011-0513 MARK D. HUDAK mhudak@cmithlaw.com March 18, 2003 Ms. Erika Lewit Associate Planner City of Burlingame Planning Dept. 501 Primrose Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1537 Drake Dear Erika: TELEPHONE (650) 342-9600 FACSIMILE (650) 342-7685 www.cmithlaw.com V- . I £ A- _"Z MAR 2 0 20i-3 CITY OF 5i kL!I%! E PLAVNhf,4G DEPT. Following the City Council's denial of Otto Miller's development application for the Drake lots without prejudice, we have engaged in good faith negotiations with the affected neighbors. The meetings have been cordial and productive, allowing both sides an opportunity to ask questions and express their. views. The neighbors had several good suggestions which have been incorporated into the final plans: To summarize the process, we first met with a group of neighbors at my office during the evening of February 5. We discussed the neighbors' desire to have only two houses built, Otto's reasons for building three houses, parking problems on the street, and basic design issues. At the conclusion of the meeting, we agreed to provide (1) a pro forma showing the cost and likely sales prices of two houses versus three houses, (2) a list of representative houses that could be viewed by the neighbors, and (3) a detailed drawing of the three houses as proposed. Otto produced the requested materials and we met with the neighbors again on February 26 at the home of Dan and Jan Ochse. The neighbors gave their reaction to our materials and we had further discussions. Following that meetm*- we understand that the neighbors had at least one more meeting. They then provided us with an e-mail detailing some further requests, which we tried to accommodate in the final plans. We were not able to reach complete agreement with every neighbor on every point. However, we did reach a pretty good consensus with most neighbors. In general, the neighbors believe that, if the project goes forward with three houses, then the plans should incorporate the design changes they requested and to which Otto has agreed. The final plans show the following changes made as a result of this process: 1. Lot 9. This house and garage are 2,655 SF, or about 77% of allowable FAR. The home is still tucked behind the redwoods. The neighbors have asked that we follow the color and trim schemes shown in the drawing we provided and Otto will do so. The height, size, and placement of this home make a good transition for the project to the houses to the south. Erika Lewit March 18, 2003 Page 2 2. Lot 10. This house remains at its earlier size. Otto agreed to move the house back from the street an additional eight feet. It would be difficult to move the house any further back, as it would conflict with the garage and leave a very small backyard. Otto will install a low brick wall in the front yard and plant two large trees in front to screen the house (the trees will be 15-20 feet, but not larger, because the neighbor across the street does not want to have his light blocked). The neighbors requested that the second floor have dormer windows and/or that the roofline be varied, but James Chu did not think these changes would benefit the house, so we. did not make them. 3. Lot 11. This house is about 2,850 SF or about 83% of allowable FAR. The second floor is set back from the side property line. By having the garage in the front and turned to face the south, the main house is pushed farther back on the lot to make a better transition to the houses on the north side of the street. The neighbors asked that we follow the same general color and trim scheme as shown on the drawing we provided to them. Otto did not feel he could reduce the square footage further or lower the roofline because the second floor bedroomsl would be too cramped. He did agree to plant more. mature landscaping and some larger trees in front than are shown on the drawing. Quite apart from these design issues, the neighbors believe that better protection measures are in order for the redwood trees on Lot 9 and they have specifically reserved the right to get an arborist's report on this topic. For his part, Otto has a real interest in preserving the redwoods and he would consider any additional information produced by the neighbors' arborist. I believe that these changes and the final plans represent a fair compromise for both sides under the circumstances. Some neighbors may appear at the Planning Commission and oppose the project; that is their right and we respect it. However, I believe that Otto has done everything feasible to make a three -*house project as;"yesable" as he can. Finally; the consensus of the neighbors is that they would like all three houses to be developed at the same time to minimize the length of the disruption to their neighborhood. Otto agiees that -dl is makes the most sense and he. iviii honor Us request. Thank you for your continuing assistance with this project. We look forward to an early date with the Planning Commission. Very truly yours, Mark D. Hudak MDH:la 13606.00001 \BGLIB 1 \1173522.1 DEPARTMENT COMMENTS MEMORANDUM 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 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 76 S�v2e5rx-vq-' i..P/jc.�rS opt Reviewed By: ° p Date of Comments: y 3 6 � S 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 l 1 1 Vih j r o O �jv c"`olc--c,e C'c `j Qh 1y //'0 <2 /�'--' x CC�1 �. h V h o vs c e '=W'I 'Fo )dQN"(7L OSe. �s a Sa�Ci9 C71- c wa ll� l�Ssia� vE� �EP Reviewed By: �� Date of Comments: 1S �0 > . 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 detached garage at 1537 Drake Avenue (B), zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-030 STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 5, 2002 r (f'SiS4 Reviewed By: Date of Comments: _Zr /v _-Z 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 detacned garage at 1537 Drake Avenue (B), zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-030 a n& (A) STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 5, 2002 Reviewed By: Date of Comments:.Z- 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 aria Q3) STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 5, 2002 Reviewed By: Date of Comments: Q-'�_ 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: V v - 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 new1wo-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: e5lq6-'• MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT October 15, 2002 To: P e From: V ng, Engineering Division Subject: 1537 e 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. UAV ICTOMProjects\Private\1537DrakeUts9and10.wpd 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; 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 MICTOR\Projects\Private\1537Drake\L_ots9and 1 O.wpd 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 meeti:•iex) 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_ SAA Public Works Directory\Author, By Name\Syed Murwa Letters\1537 Drake Ave memo.wpd PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS -Project Nameza& u {rr�u-"( T -Project Address: lf�21 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 4ogt 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. Page 1 of 3 UAprivate developmenAPLANNING REVIEW COMNiENTS.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 vdd Doles; 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 Fnpmeers 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:Aprivate developmentTLANNING REVIEW CONMIENTS.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 developmenAPLANNING REVIEW COMAENTS.doc ATY oA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO E 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 Wi-G A JANET GARCIA 1561 Dr i ke Avenge Burlingame, CA 94010 650- 79-0 437 Garjg=(2 v',aol.corn April 14, 2003 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Commissioners, COMMUNICATION ATION AFTER PREPARAbO OF STAFF RE%RT , RECEIVED APR 14 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I am writing this in and effort to again bring to your attention the seriousness of ignoring the environmental issues associated with the development of the lot at 1557 Drake with respect to the grove of Redwood trees on the property. Many letters from myself and my neighbors have brought this problem to your attention. Last year at many of the meetings the issue was mentioned as one that was to be examined by the Commission. In the September 23 Planning Commission meeting "concerns were expressed that the tree protection measures were not strong enough" and it was suggested by the Commission that "the neighbors idea to retain an independent arborist to study the Redwood trees" was a good one. Due to the handover to City Council, the item could not be resolved by the Commission and was not properly addressed by the Council. It was mentioned by Mr. Coffey in the City Council meeting of January 6, 2003, that the "Redwood tree protection needs to be addressed on the basis of revisions to the project." I have attached an independent arborist report for which no fee was paid. This arborist/horticultural consultant was referred to me by two local arborists that do work in Burlingame and the surrounding areas and is highly regarded in his field. Mr. Barrie Coates has 20 years of experience in the area of horticulture , primarily involved in tree preservation during construction. In the attached report, which you will read, important and pertinent measures were offered with regard to the construction and it's impact to the Redwood trees on the property. I will summarize these as follows: 1) The roots of the Redwood are pencil thin and fragile. If soil cuts or pavement prevent more than 50% of the tree roots from absorbing water and minerals a slow decline due to starvation is predictable. 2) A lack of water due to root damage can,cause an untreatable fungU disease which will kill the tree over time. It may take up to ten years for the cycle to be complete but the result is still dead trees. 3) The requirements for tree preservation with regard to soil cuts are as follows: (For ease of identification the trees are numbered on the footprint as 1-6) A) Tree #4 is a 48 inch Redwood. It is proposed that the roots of this tree be cut on three sides of the redwood to allow for the construction of the homes on lot 9 and 10. Based on the protection measures outlined, the distance of the soil cuts from trunk must be 40 feet in order to protect the root system. Mr. Millers current proposal provides for soil cuts 14 feet from the truck on two sides and 18 feet on the third side. B) Trees #3,5 and 6, are 36 inch Redwoods. The protection measures state that for preservation of these trees the distance of soil cuts away from the trunk must be 30 feet. The current development proposed makes soil cuts within 12, 14 and 18 feet, on three sides of all three trees. C) The soil compaction and grading of the driveway is another area of serious concern. The driveway for the home on lot 10 is a distance of 3-6 feet away from the trunk of 4 of the six trees. The measures state that standard pavement methods must not be used and that the pavement and base materials must be pervious and states a formula for the maintenance of adequate oxygen necessary for root life. Without the detailed information on these items, the impact on the driveway in such close proximity to the trees can certainly not be considered mitigated. D) Any work that is approved must not be done after Feb.15 in order to maintain adequate water in the Spring for the trees vascular activity. This is a requirement for the health of the trees. In addition, details of grading, landscaping and utility plans must be formulated and reviewed in order to ascertain the impact of these plans on the Redwood trees. Utility lines, irrigation lines and depth of grade for these items as well as driveways are important issues related to the root protection. These tree preservation rules must be explored and adequately addressed and mitigated in order to prevent a potentially very significant negative impact on the health of the Redwood trees on this property. In addition, and of significant importance, Mr. Miller hired an arborist to provide the City with mitigating measures to reduce the impact of the development on the Redwood trees health. ( Mayne Tree .Company document dated June 17,2002 ) In this report prepared for Mr. Miller by his own paid arborist, recomfinendations were made with regard to the preservation and maintenance of the Redwoods Health that although not thorough, was ignored by Mr. Miller when designing his homes. - In addition, although this report was cited in the Mitigated Negative Declaration 4rid Initial Study report dated June 24, 2002,and specifically identified as part of the,mitigating measures, it was then taken out of subsequent documents and these measures were also absent from the suggested mitigating measures in most current proposal. As a matter of fact, the only measures provided for protecting the trees was the requirement to "provide a root protection plan prior to the demolition permit being issued". How can the development be approved at all, absent of any specific measures, especially when it is clear that the development itself does not allow for adequate root protection? In summary, in order to protect the trees, an area of protection for both soil compaction and soil cuts must be adhered to . As stated in Mr. Coates letter, "If the owner or municipality have defined the goal of tree preservation ...... these are the rules that must be followed." The footprint of the homes are well within the area of root protection as noted by both Mr. Coates and Mayne Tree Company. This is most certainly a threat to the Redwood trees. In addition, in keeping with Burlingame City Ordinance # 11.06.040 a fence must be constructed to protect the trees. This fence based on Mayne Tree Company reccomendations and Mr. Coates report would make it impossible for Mr. Miller to construct his houses as currently proposed. Realizing that the approval of Mr. Millers plans as currently proposed will not be possible if measures to protect the trees are implemented, leaves the responsibility on the city to deny the current proposed plans, and ask Mr. Miller to work with the proposed rules for preserving this historical and beautiful environmental resource, which is to be "protected" by the city as provided for in the ordinance. The potential liability to the City of Burlingame for ignoring the potential negative impact of the construction, as it is currently proposed , would be substantial. Knowingly and willingly ignoring potential environmental implications would leave the City of Burlingame open to potential lawsuits. Had Mr. Miller consulted an arborist to address the obvious potential threat to the Redwood grove prior to the purchase of the property, these limitations would certainly have been recognized. I personally spoke to one developer looking at the property for purchase who cited the perceived difficulties of developing the lot due to the Redwood grove. As with many environmental issues that pose limitations to construction, usually the reports are completed and resolution of these problems are resolved prior to purchase. In this case Mr. Miller must certainly adjust his plans to responsibly mitigate and resolve this very serious issue of the trees. The fact that Mr. Miller purchased the lot without an environmental study relevant to this is unfortunate, but nevertheless his responsibility to address. Sincerely, Jan Garcia BARRI E D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 40W53-1052 Janet Garcia April 9, 2003 1561 Drake Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Fax: 650/692-4142 Dear Mrs. Garcia, In response to your question regarding how close to a tree trunk it is possible to make soil cuts or install pavement, may I offer the following comments. You specifically mentioned coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees as the subject in this case. Summary If soil cuts or pavement prevent more than 50% of a trees absorbing roots from supplying water and minerals to the foliage canopy a slow decline due to starvation is predictable. If redwood trees are drought stressed due to root removal, they become susceptible to a deadly fungal disease which is in practical terms, untreatable. If construction beneath. and adjacent to mature coast redwood trees is to leave those trees healthy and vigorous 20 years after construction, the proportion of roots removed or damaged must be carefully managed. Most trees, and especially coast redwoods produce all of their absorbing roots in the upper 12 inches of soil'. These pencil -lead size roots are the only part of a trees root system which absorbs water and minerals. - 2. Even though the root tips of these absorbing roots are reproduced each year, the '/2 inch — 1 inch diameter roots from which these absorbing roots originate must be maintained in an undamaged state if new absorbing roots are to be produced. These '/z inch-1 inch diameter roots are usually 12-18 inches below ground. If soil cuts remove up to 50% of the absorbing roots in winter from vigorous healthy trees, but do not remove the % inch — 1 inch roots from which the absorbing roots originate, trees will regenerate new absorbing roots. This cannot be done after February 15 in mid California however, since the trees foliage is totally dependent for water on the health and vigor of those absorbing roots once vascular activity begins in spring. 1 Arboriculture. Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, 2"d Edition Dr. Richard Hams, page 181 Janet Garcia 4. Removal of absorbing roots reduces the trees ability to absorb water and minerals in direct relation to the proportion of roots removed. A grove of coast redwood trees produces an interwoven root mass from all of the trees in the grove. 5. If a large proportion of the absorbing roots of a redwood tree are removed, it becomes drought stressed. A drought stressed coast redwood is very susceptible to a fungal disease Botryospheria ribis. Once infected, it is in practical terms impossible to arrest the infection, and this disease gradually infects a larger proportion of the branches, until the tree has no more foliage and dies. It may require 10 years for this process to complete its cycle but the end result is still a dead tree. 6. In 20 years of experience, primarily involved in tree preservation during construction, I have found that soil cuts can be made in the winter at 5 times the trees trunk diameter if those cuts are only on one side (a 15 inch diameter tree could have soil cuts 6 %4 feet away from the trunk). If cuts must be made on 2 quadrants of the trees canopy (50% of area beneath the canopy) the distance must be 7 times the trunk diameter. If cuts must be made on 3 sides beneath the canopy, the distance of each cut must be 10 times the trunk diameter from the trunk. If the owner and the municipality have defined the goal of tree preservation requirements as having healthy trees remaining 20 years after development, these are the rules which must be followed. 7. Paving over roots has a variety of effects on the trees health, depending upon the type of paving surface used, the depth of cut necessary for installation of base materials and the condition and species of the subject trees. If standard pavement procedures are used, requiring a 9-12 inch deep soil cut for installation of base rock obviously all absorbing roots within the paved area will be removed. If base rock and surface materials can be installed on top of existing grade, those roots can be preserved, if compaction equipment does not compact the soil containing absorbing roots more than 80% before paving materials are laid down. 8. If pavement is installed over absorbing roots, the pavement and base materials must be pervious (percolation of 3/4 inch per hour+) or the roots beneath the pavement will atrophy and die for lack of oxygen. Absorbing roots must have a minimum of 10% oxygen (by volume) of soil mass to remain active and 25% (by volume) is preferred. Respectfully submitted, Barrie D. Coate Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 4 BA RRI E D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 V" 408/353-1052 l . Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not implyright of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is adressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. . 10.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. 4>0. 6-0,& Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant { _AFTER PREPARATI01`4 Os -PC Pl#` 3TA� RFPO�'' From: McCrum, Chris BGI SF [Chris.McCrum@barclaysglobal.com] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:12 PM To: 'planning@burlingame.org' Subject: COMMENT ON 1537 DRAKE AVE - IN ADVANCE OF MONDAY'S HEARING PLEASE DELIVER THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND MARGARET MUNROE My name is Chris McCrum and I live at 1540 Drake Ave, directly across from the subject property. My family and I are out of town next Monday and we wanted to provide written comment in advance of Monday's meeting. As you will be aware from our attendance and comments at previous hearings, this is a very important issue for us. My comments are as follows: There have been two constructive meetings between members of the neighborhood and Otto Miller since the last hearing (my hat goes off to Rosalie O'Mahony for the idea of us working together on this.) I am OK with the two proposed outside houses, although see comment below on the roof heights as all three houses have the same roof height. I am concerned however about the height and mass of the middle house. These concerns are spelled out below. Height While the variety in architectural style is welcome, this is nonetheless a blocky design and stands towards the front of the lot (nearer the street than the existing house). The elevation is such that the house will obstruct existing views from both main reception rooms in our house. Our concern therefore is in minimizing the degree of obstruction. I understand that Mr Miller offered to move the house back 8 feet from that shown in the previous plans. This is a helpful start, however I believe this is not enough. I strongly suggest that the commission require Mr Miller to reduce the height of the roof line by three feet. Note that all three houses have 30 feet roof lines, and also that the average on this block currently is less than 22 feet. Thus all three houses have roof lines that are 36% higher than average. I also note that several of the existing two story houses on the block (including that to the immediate left of the proposed development) have roof lines that are several feet lower than 30 feet. I have been in one of these.homes and found the upstairs rooms to be no less appealing for their lower height. Thus it is clearly possible to build two story homes with attractive upstairs rooms that are less than 30 feet tall. Mass This house has not changed in overall square foot from that first proposed. With all the meetings that we have had on this development the current proposal for the three houses only reduces square footage by 7% from that first proposed, which was regarded by the majority of the Planning Commission as well in excess of the what was reasonable for the neighborhood. I would urge the Commission to consider a reduction of 200-300 square feet in this middle house. I believe this would bring the whole development more into line with the spirit of neighborhood planning articulated clearly by several members of the Commission in the earlier meetings on this proposal. In closing, I want to emphasize two things: 1. The neighborhood has worked hard, and spent a great number of personal hours, to resolve this issue. This includes working to find ways to 1 reasonably meet Mr Miller in the middle to settle this. s w 2. we are very eager to get through with the proposal. I believe that with the above minor changes in the height of roof and in square footage of the middle house noted above, we will have succeeded in addressing the concerns of the neighborhood while at the same time allowing Mr Miller a substantial return on his capital. I hope these comments are helpful in your deliberations. Sincerely Chris McCrum 650 342 5296 To: Meg Monroe/Burlingame Planning Commission From: Bob Bear, 1510 Re: 1537 Drake Ave. Date: 4/14/03 Please insert the attached letter dated 4/10/03 from Sean B. Absher, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, to Larry Anderson, Burlingame City Attorney, into the record regarding the development of the 1537 Drake Ave. parcel. For the record, we believe the three lots were merged into one parcel, and therefore, must comply with the subdivision map act and the Burlingame Code regarding subdivisions (Title 26). STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE 660 NEWPORT CENTER ORIVE, SUITE 1600 ATTORNEYS AT LAW NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-5441 44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 4200 TELEPHONE (949) 725-4 FACSIMILE (949) T25-4100 00 SEAN B. ABSHER DIRECT DIAL: (415) 283-2242 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 SANTA BARBARA OFFICE SABSHEROSYCR.COM - TELEPHONE (415) 283-2240 302 OLIVE STREET SANTA BARBARA. CALIFORNIA 93101 FACSIMILE (415) 283-2255 TELEPHONE (805) 564-0065 FACSIMILE (805) 5444044 April 10, 2003 BY FAX AND U.S. MAII. (650) 556-9287 Larry Anderson City Attorney City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1537 Drake Avenue; Otto Miller Development Application Dear Mr.. Anderson: y As `.a folloW-up td our telephoMe"'call yesterday afternoon, ° the purpose of this letter is to i; r } er add_'e5s'the`issae whetl eithhe-above Application must comply with the Subdivision Map Act. and'Title 26 .-d f the 'Builingathe Municipal 'Code (the "Code" ). After careful review of the %< Subdivtsion'ZVIap Act; and Titles 25 and 26 of the Code, it remains my. opinion that the above . Application concerns -the development of a "subdivision" as defined in Government Code Section 66424 and Title 26, Section 26.24.030 of the Code. Section 66424 of the Subdivision Map Act provides as follows: "Subdivision" means the division, by any subdivider, of any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future. Section 26.24.030 of the Code provides as follows: When land, either within previously subdivided property or unsubdivided acreage, is divided for the purpose of creating two, three or four lots, a tentative map shall be prepared. Four copies of the map shall be filed with the City Engineer. Notwithstanding the above provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the Code, the City's DOCSSF\36999v1\24549.0001 Larry Anderson April 10, 2003 Page Two position at the January 6, 2003 City Council hearing was that the Application was exempt from the Subdivision Map Act and Title 26 of the Code because the Application was subject to review and approval under the conditional use permit provisions contained in Title 25, Section 25.28.030 (subd. 5) of the Code. This approach, however, is correct only if the three lots were not previously merged. Section 25.28.030 by its express terms states that it applies to the issuance of a conditional use permit for "demolition of a residential structure or an accessory structure thereto, which structure is built over or across two or more legally subdivided lots, and the construction of a structure upon one or more of said lots" (emphasis added). The above quoted language makes clear that Section 25.28.030 presupposes in the first instance that two or more legally subdivided lots exist. If separate lots do not exist by virtue of merger, the subsequent "unmerger" of the property is a subdivision subject to the Subdivision Map Act and cannot be "reemerged" under a conditional use permit. The evidence,that the subject property was merged into one parcel is very strong. The county assessment roll shows the property as one parcel with one parcel number. . Further, it is my -recollection that the. Chief, of Planning stated at the January 6, 2003 City Council meeting that the lots.had.been previously rkierged. •I cannot say whether the planner's reference to "merger" was intended to.meanformal in under land use principles; in any event, the comment was made and I am`:unaware of=any evidence showing that the merger was informal. Certainly, if you have such evidence I would appreciate your providing it to me. r : t is rny.ituderstanding .from, our,telephone conversation yesterday that the City Council will is`ider �Che..above Yefelenced matteritia-study session�this Monday. Elease call rime before the_stt dy �: i.i�,3,c•::.,�::, .,. ., session rf.you have an"" gri 58 l6i regarding the a>iove analysis: - t Very trulyyou>:s,,.: z Sean B. Absher SBA:Ijn cc: Clients DOCSSFl36999v1 \24549.0001 DAVID TAYLOR P.O. BOX 843 MILLBRAE, CA 94030 February 21, 2003 Mark Hudak esq. 216 Park Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1537 Drake, Burlingame (APN #026-033-030) Dear Mark, Here is a proforma for you to review with your client. It is based upon criteria learned from agents who have sold your clients finish products to occupants and contractors who may understand his economy of scale from repetitive construction. 2 Houses On 9,000 sq.ft. lots and 7,400 sq.ft. of houses including parking for 3 cars sold @ $4,300,000 Cost of Acquisition $1,800,000 Construction 7,400 sq.ft. @ $150 psf 1,110,000 2,910,000 Profit 1 0 0 3 Houses 2 sold @ $900,000 each, 1 sold @ $1,350,000 on 6,000 sq.ft. lots each 7,900 sq.ft. of houses $3,150,000 Cost of Acquisition $1,800,000 Construction 7,900 sq.ft. @ 165 psf 1,303,500 3,103,500 Profit S46 The "proforma" is intended to introduce a concept that two large houses may be more profitable than three, with the caveat that your client's production cost may be propitiatory. Sincerely, David Taylor RECEIVED MAR 17 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ADDENDUM 1 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1537 DRAKE AVENUE REVISIONS TO PROPOSAL FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS PREVIOUSLY MERGED BY A STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF 3 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES A. INTRODUCTION This addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), which permits a lead agency (the City of Burlingame) to prepare an addendum to the previously prepared mitigated negative declaration if some changes or additions to that mitigated negative declaration are necessary, but none of the changes are sufficiently substantial to warrant preparation of a new (or "subsequent") mitigated negative declaration pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. As approved by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this addendum may be included in, or attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it need not be circulated for public review. B. SUMMARY On November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed a project and Mitigated Negative Declaration for re-emergence of the three lots and construction of new single family residences on two of the three emerged lots. The initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for that project (ND-525-P) was prepared with the assumption that a third house would be built on the remaining emerged lot. The City Council also reviewed this project ant the Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 6, 2003. At that time the applicant was given direction to reduce the floor area of the houses and to go back to the Planning Commission with a proposal for all 3 lots. The revised project differs in the following key respects: Lot 9: Reduced the floor area by 268 SF (previous proposal with 3001 SF of floor area; current proposal has a floor area of 2733 SF); Lot 10: Increased the front setback by eight feet (previous proposal had a 22'-8" front setback; current proposal has a 30'-8" front setback); Lot 11: • Proposes a house on Lot 11 with an attached one -car garage and a floor area of 2799 SF (0.47 FAR) where 3022 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed (a conceptual plan submitted with the previous proposal showed a 3020 SF (0.50 FAR), two-story house with attached garage); a 221 SF reduction from the original proposal. The project does not increase the number of dwelling units which can be built on the 3 lots and proposes to reduce the floor area for two of the houses. Therefore, the current proposal is more compliant with the city code requirements and therefore is covered by the analysis of Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-525P). Addendum To Mitigated Negative Declaration 1537 Drake Avenue The following issues are those which were raised in the initial study as having a potential for environmental impact. With mitigation, these impacts were shown to be reduced to less than significant. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Redwood Trees: The significant Redwood trees will remain on site with the proposed application. Construction traffic and proposed building structures may have a potentially significant impact on the trees. Mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to protect the significant Redwood trees on site are detailed in a memo from Mayne Tree Expert Company (see attached date stamped June 17, 2002) and include: using Lot 11 for equipment staging and storage during construction on Lots 9 (where the trees are located) and 10, submitting a root protection area plan and post -construction soil compaction mitigation plan to the City Arborist for review and approval before demolition of any structures on site, submitting a footing foundation plan for the approval of the City Arborist, submitting a pre -foundation pour report for approval by the City Arborist before scheduling pre- and post- pour inspections with the Building Department, and submitting a Certified Arborist's report for the approval of the City Arborist for the maintenance of the trees with developer responsible for ongoing maintenance or replacement costs for at least 3 years after construction is completed. UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Water Service: The existing water pipe which would serve three proposed houses on Lots 9, 10 and 11 is old and has experienced build-up so that water pressure to the site is insufficient. The proposed application may have a potentially significant impact on the water pressure. Mitigation proposed by the applicant for the water pressure to the three new houses includes replacing the existing 2-inch water pipe with a new 2-inch copper pipe, for a distance from its connection to the 2 inch line on Bernal Avenue and through the rear easement along Lots 9, 10 and 11, to a point ending at the southeastern property corner of Lot 9. Sewer Service: There is an existing 6-inch sewer main located in the center of the street that serves the properties on Drake Avenue. There are four properties down slope at the end of the sewer main, 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue. These four properties have a history of sewage backup problems. This is caused by the fact that the properties have plumbing fixtures below the man -hole level on Drake and by the shallow slope of the sewer main in the street. Recently the city replaced the sewer laterals to these four houses, but protection against possible back-up caused by foreign objects in the sewer main would require the private property owners to install back flow valves on their sewer laterals. A mitigation proposed by the applicant to address the sewer issue is to install backflow prevention devices on the four properties that are now subject to sewage backup. This will reduce the impact of the development on the existing sewer service to a less than significant level. In addition, the City of Burlingame has revised its sewer replacement work program and intends to complete by summer of 2003 work on a sewer rehabilitation project in the vicinity of 1537 Drake Avenue. This project will involve an upstream bypass of the upstream incoming flow of sewage from the manhole at the end of the cul-de-sac on the 1500 block of Drake Avenue. The sewer system on Drake will also be replaced with a new and larger system. The rehabilitation project is expected to greatly improve sewer service and to help prevent sewage back-up problems in the area. -2- Addendum To Mitigated Negative Declaration CONSTRUCTION -RELATED IMPACTS: 1537 Drake Avenue Access, Parking, and Noise During Construction: There is no vehicle turn -around area at the termination of Drake Avenue. The construction vehicles required for the proposed project may create a temporary impact on public safety, access, and circulation patterns during demolition and construction, including on -street parking, unless specific measures are taken to address these issues. In addition, the demolition and construction for the proposed project will create a temporary potentially significant impact to the ambient noise levels in the neighborhood. Mitigation proposed by the applicant for the noise and traffic impacts include: a construction operation plan, date stamped September 23, 2002, showing a construction parking area and temporary stabilized construction entrance to be established off-street on Lot 11 for the duration of construction on Lots 9 and 10; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends; there shall be no construction equipment or construction worker parking in the street in the City right-of-way during construction on Lots 9 and 10. Construction workers shall not park on Lots 9 and 10 during construction on any of the lots. C. CONCLUSION The mitigated negative declaration prepared for the original proposal identified potential impacts in the areas of geology, hydrology and water quality, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems and aesthetics. All of these potential impacts were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the initial study. With the proposed changes in the project, which reduces the overall floor area of the project, no additional impacts are anticipated, and the identified mitigation measures are still applicable to the revised project. -3- ADDENDUM 2 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1537 DRAKE AVENUE REVISIONS TO PROPOSAL FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS PREVIOUSLY MERGED BY A STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF 3 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES A. INTRODUCTION This addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), which permits a lead agency (the City of Burlingame) to prepare an addendum to the previously prepared mitigated negative declaration if some changes or additions to that mitigated negative declaration are necessary, but none of the changes are sufficiently substantial to warrant preparation of a new (or "subsequent') mitigated negative declaration pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. As approved by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this addendum may be included in, or attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it need not be circulated for public review. B. SUMMARY On November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed a proj ect and Mitigated Negative Declaration for re-emergence of the three lots and construction of new single-family residences on two of the three emerged lots at 1537 Drake Avenue. The initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for that project (ND-525-P) was prepared with the assumption that a third house would be built on the remaining emerged lot. The City Council also reviewed this proj ect and the Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 6, 2003. At that time the applicant was given direction to reduce the floor area of the houses and to go back to the Planning Commission with a proposal for all 3 lots. The applicant resubmitted a project on March 28, 2003. The revised project differs in the following key respects: Construction Staging • Lot 11 will be developed concurrently with Lots 9 and 10. The project does not increase the number of dwelling units that can be built on the 3 lots and proposes protection and mitigation measures for the significant Redwood trees on the site. Therefore, the current proposal is compliant with the city code requirements and is within the scope of the analysis of Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-525P). The following issues are those that were raised in the initial study as having a potential for environmental impact. With mitigation, these impacts are shown to be reduced to less than significant. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Redwood Trees: The significant Redwood trees identified will remain on site with the proposed application. Construction traffic and proposed building structures have the potential to significantly impact on the trees. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the applicant has agreed to abide by the following measures as outlined in a report from Mayne Tree Company, dated April 28, 2003: • that root protection fencing shall be installed around the Redwood trees, in a location approved by a licensed arborist and the City Arborist; this fencing will be in place prior to any demolition or Addendum To Mitigated Negative Declaration 1537 Drake Avenue construction on the site and will not be relocated or removed until such an action is approved by the City Arborist and the Building Department; • the applicant is also proposing to use a pier and grade beam foundation for sections of the dwellings on Lots 9 and 10, pier holes for the foundation will be hand dug to a depth of 18 inches and a final foundation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department and City Arborist before a building permit is issued; • the applicant is required to submit a full landscape plan, including irrigation, fencing, and soil deposits, to the City Arborist for approval and all fence post holes in the root protection zone for the Redwood trees will be hand dug; • the developer will have a certified arborist on site during all grading and digging on site and the arborist will submit weekly reports to the City Arborist to confirm that protection and mitigation measures are being followed; and • the developer is required to follow a 5-year maintenance plan, including reports by a licensed arborist, to address the health of the Redwood trees and the developer shall bear the penalty fees if the trees do not survive the 5-year period. CONSTRUCTION -RELATED IMPACTS: Access, Parking, and Noise During Construction: There is no vehicle turn -around area at the termination of Drake Avenue. The construction vehicles required for the proposed project may create a temporary impact on public safety, access, and circulation patterns during demolition and construction, including on -street parking, unless specific measures are taken to address these issues. In addition, the demolition and construction for the proposed project will create a temporary potentially significant impact to the ambient noise levels in the neighborhood. Mitigation proposed by the applicant for the noise and traffic impacts include: • that all three houses shall be built concurrently to minimize the length of construction time; • that there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends; • that there shall be no construction equipment or material storage or construction worker parking in the street in the City right-of-way during demolition or construction. C. CONCLUSION The mitigated negative declaration prepared for the original proposal identified potential impacts in the areas of geology, hydrology and water quality, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems and aesthetics. All of these potential impacts were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the initial study. With the proposed changes in the project, which show all three lots to be developed concurrently, no additional impacts are anticipated, and the identified mitigation measures are still applicable to the revised project. -2- CITY OF BURLINGAME MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-525-P, RECEIVED DEC 17 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on November 6, 2002, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment (XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Proiect Description: The site at 1537 Drake Avenue consists of three parcels, Lots 9, 10, and 11. The three lots are merged by one single -story, single-family home and various accessory structures. There are 6 Redwood trees located at the northwest side of Lot 9 that have been declared significant biological resources by the City Arborist. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and accessory structures, so that the three pre-existing 6,006 SF lots will re-emerge as independent, build -able lots. The applicant is proposing to develop Lots 9 and 10 with new two-story single-family dwellings. Lot 11 will not be developed with the application. The significant Redwood trees will remain on site and be protected during construction. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for the re-emergence of three parcels previously merged by a structure, design review for two new single-family residences, and a special permit for an attached garage on Lot 9. The project meets all zoning code requirements. Reasons for Conclusion: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the lots are all of legal size and meet all zoning requirements. The significant trees on site will remain and mitigation measures have been proposed by the applicant to reduce the potentially significant impacts to less than significant for the significant trees, the existing sewer line capacity, the existing water line capacity, erosion control and storm water run-off during demolition and construction, and traffic flow and noise during demolition and construction. The potentially significant aesthetic impacts are mitigated to less than significant because the proposed project will be required to obtain a conditional use permit and to go through design review before demolition or construction permits are issued. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings, it is found that with the mitigation measures proposed, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. City Planner Signature of Processing Official Title Date This determination becomes final after action at a public hearing held before the Planning Commission, unless the Commission's action is appealed to the City Council. Date posted: November 6.2002 Declaration of Posting I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on November 6, 2002. LAealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No t1-11j ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK., CITY OF BURLINGAME INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST E C E E DEC 17 2002 Project Title: 1537 Drake Avenue CITY OF BURLINGAI ME PLANNING DEPT. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Margaret Monroe, City Planner (650)558-7250 4. Project Location: Parcel with an address of 1537 Drake Avenue, Burlingame, California 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Otto Miller 1537 Drake Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 6. General Plan Designation: Low -Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 APN: 026-033-030 8. Description of the Project: The site at 1537 Drake Avenue consists of three parcels, Lots 9, 10, and 11. The three lots are merged by one single -story, single-family home and various accessory structures. There are 6 Redwood trees located at the northwest side of Lot 9 that have been declared a significant biological resources by the City Arborist. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and accessory structures, so that the three pre-existing 6,006 SF lots will re-emerge as independent, buildable lots. The applicant is proposing to develop Lots 9 an 10 with two new, two-story, single-family residences. Lot 11 is not planned for development with the current application. The significant Redwood trees will remain on site and be protected during construction. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for the re-emergence of three parcels previously merged by a structure, design review for two new single-family residences, and a special permit for an attached garage on Lot 9. The project meets all zoning code requirements. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The property is on the south side of Drake Avenue, approximately 50 feet from the termination of the street. With the proposed project, lot lines for three 6,006. SF lots on the site will re-emerge. The surrounding land use is single-family residential. The majority of the existing lots in the neighborhood are approximately 6000 SF, with the creek -side lots being irregularly shaped and having larger lot areas. There is a 10-foot public easement running along the rear of the three lots. The project site slopes slightly north and downhill towards Drake Avenue and Mills Creek, which is 60 feet to the northwest of the site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: A permit will be required from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for demolition of the existing structures. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources X Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural. Resources X Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials X Hydrology & Water X Noise Agricultural Resources Quality Air Quality Public Services X Mandatory Findings of Significance X Transportation/Traffic X Utilities and Service Systems = DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a " potentially significant impact" or " potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. KAWJJAff" IyN�L-"- L q�6-2- Margaret nroe, City Planner Date Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program 1,2 X or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1,16 X 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,3 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating 3 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 5,6,7 X effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 5,6,7 X recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,6,7 X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5,6,7 X iv) Landslides? 6 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 5,4,11 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 5,67 X would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 5,6,7 X Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 1,5 X tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 9,10,11 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1,16 X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 1,4,9, siltation on- or off -site? 11 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or 1,4,9, river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 11 X runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 10, 1, f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 4,9 11 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 12 X a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would 12 X impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the 1 X failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 113 X quality plan? ' b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1,13 X projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,13 X pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,13 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,13 X people? 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,9,11 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 15 X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,14 X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp 2,4 X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2 4 9 " ' 11 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,4 X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,19 X b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,16 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but 1,16 X not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 1,16 X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,19 X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1,16 X Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 1,18 X would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific 1,18 X plan or other land use plan? 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,17 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 1,2,12, involving the release of hazardous materials into the 17 X environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile 1,4,17 X of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 17 X 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety 1,14 X hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 X the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 1,20 X emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 1,20 X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 1,9,11 X standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 1,4 X vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 1 X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,4,9, X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 11 project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 1,14 X such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 1 X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,20 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTH ITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,9,10, X Regional Water Quality Control Board? 11 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 1,9,10 X treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of 1,9,10 X which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 1,9,10 X existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1,9 X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,9 X accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1,9 X related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 1 X to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2,4 X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,4 X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,4 X historical resource as defined in'15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,4 X archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,4 X or site or unique geological feature? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,4 X formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,4 X regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 1,4 X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farniland or Farmland of 1 X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X to non-agricultural use? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1,8,19 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 X Initial Study Summary 1537 Drake Avenue 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 1995 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 1994. 4 Draft Site Plan for Lots 9, 10, and 11, date stamped October 29, 2002. 5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1971. 6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. 7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. 8 Mayne Tree Company Arborist Reports, date stamped March 5 and June 17, 2002, by the Planning Department 9 Engineering Memos dated March 18, April 8, May 31, June 4, August 5, August 30, and October 15, 2002 10. LTI sanitary sewer and storm water capacity calculations dated May 31, 2002 and Detail Sheet C4 and Utility Exhibit Sheet C-1, date stamped September 23, 2002, by the Planning Department 11 LTI Erosion Plan and Construction Plan, date stamped September 23, 2002 by the Planning Department and Miller Development letter dated November 5, 2002. 12 Map of Approximate Locations of 100 year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 13 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995 14 San Mateo County Comprehensive airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994 15 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997 16 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of Fish and Game 17 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998 18 E. Brabb, F. Taylor, and G. Miller, Geologic, Scenic and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, Department of Interior, 1982 19 City Arborist Memos, dated April 2 and September 3, 2002 20 Fire Department Memo, dated September 3, 2002 Initial Study Summary 1537 Drake Avenue Land use and Planning Summary: The three re-emerging lots proposed for single-family residential development are 6006 SF, a density of 7.3 units per acre. The Zoning Code establishes a minimum lot size for this area of 5000 SF and the low -density residential designation of the General Plan allows a maximum of 8 units per acre in this area. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The R-1 zoning district permits new single-family residences, provided they complete a design review to evaluate the architectural consistency of the design for the proposed dwelling and for the compatibility of the proposed residences with the neighborhood setting One single-family dwelling and various accessory structures currently merge the existing three lots at 1537 Drake Avenue. Planning Code Section 25.28.30(6) requires a conditional use permit for the demolition of the existing structures and to build on lots with re-emerging lot lines. Conditional use permits are granted by the Planning Commission if it finds: that the proposed use will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and that the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and purposes of the zoning code. The proposed residences conform to all measurable requirements of the zoning code; the Planning Commission determines compliance with design review criteria. Mitigation: • A conditional use permit shall be required before any demolition or construction is allowed on site. • The two residences proposed on Lots 9 and 10 with the current application shall complete the design review process and be approved by the Planning Commission before any demolition or construction is allowed on site. • That a separate application shall be made for the development of Lot 11 and the application shall complete the design review process and be approved by the Planning Commission before construction commences on Lot 11. • The project shall meet the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding area are planned for low -density residential uses. The proposed infill residential development conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will create more housing by adding a net number of one house on the site with the current application and two houses at such time when Lot 11 is developed with a single-family residence. Geologic Summary: The site is flat and located in an urban setting, which has been developed with single- family homes for approximately 88 years. The site is approximately 2 miles from the San Andreas Fault, but is not within the Alquist-Priola zone. The site is within 2%2 miles of the Serra Fault, a minor thrust fault considered to have common roots with the San Andreas Fault. There are no known faults on the site. The seismic exposure will be reduced over the present development, since the residences will incorporate the seismic construction requirements of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition. The site is relatively level and does not have a history of landslides. The soil type is designated as QTs, which is a deformed older sedimentary deposit which primarily consists of irregularly bedded gravel, sand and silt clay. Under seismic conditions most Burlingame soils are reasonably stable. This site is in an area 10 Initial Study Summary 1537 Drake Avenue of very low (0-0.2 probability) liquefaction susceptibility. The project will be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. Mitigation: • That the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, including seismic standards, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability Water Summary: This project is a residential infill development project and it is not located adjacent to a waterway. Mills Creek runs approximate 60 feet to the northwest of the site, beyond the lots developed with single-family dwellings at the termination of Drake Avenue. The project site is located in Flood Zone B, which is outside the 100-year flood zone. There is an existing 2-inch water line to the site that runs along the rear of the lots in a 10-foot public easement. This line connects to a main water line on Bernal Avenue. The 2-inch water pipe does not provide adequate water pressure for the existing single-family dwelling on site. The pipe is old and has experienced build-up, reducing the capacity of the line to that of a 3/a inch line. The proposed project will connect one additional dwelling to the already insufficient water pipe with the current proposal, and another additional dwelling when Lot 11 is developed in the future, and there will be a potentially significant impact to the water pressure on the site unless mitigation measures are provided. The Public Works Department has recommended that the 2-inch pipe located in the 10-foot public easement at the rear of the project site be replaced by a new 2-inch copper pipe, which will reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation: • 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. • 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. Air Quality Summary: The proposed application is for two single-family residences on Lots 9 and 10 to replace one single-family residence on the site. The re-emergence of three existing lots will also allow for the future development of Lot 11 with a single-family residence. While this project may accommodate more people than the previous use, the change in emissions generated by the potential of two new houses at this location over emissions from all development in Burlingame is insignificant. The site is within walking distance of countywide bus service. The three lots are zoned for low -density residential development and with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. Mitigation: • That demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the permit shall be complied with. 11 Initial study summary 1537 Drake Avenue Transportation/Circulation Summary: The site is on Drake Avenue, a local street that terminates approximately 50' north of the proposed project site. Drake Avenue has access to Adeline Drive, a collector street which provides access to El Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create a permanent substantial increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any incremental traffic or trip generation produced by the proposed net increase of 1 dwelling for the current proposal and 1 additional single-family dwelling when Lot 11 is developed in the future. The proposed single-family dwellings meet the on -site parking requirements established in the zoning code. There is no vehicle turn -around area at the termination of Drake Avenue. The construction vehicles required for the proposed project may create a temporary impact on public safety, access, and circulation patterns during demolition and construction, including on -street parking, unless specific measures are taken to address these issues. The applicant has submitted a construction operation plan, date stamped September 23, 2002, and.a letter dated November 5, 2002, from Miller Development, showing a construction parking area to be established off-street on Lot 11 while there is construction on Lots 9 and 10, which are impacted by the protected Redwood trees; a temporary stabilized construction entrance shall be installed on Lot 11. When the dwellings on Lots 9 and 10 have received finalled Building permits, and a design review application has been approved for the development of Lot 11, construction vehicles shall be permitted to use the city right-of-way on Drake Avenue for the construction of the dwelling on Lot 11. During all construction phases there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends; and construction activity shall comply with city mandated hours. Mitigation: • That the applicant shall comply with the construction operation plan submitted September 23, 2002, and letter dated November 5, 2002, from Miller Development, which identifies a construction parking area and stabilized entrance on Lot 11 for the duration of construction on Lots 9 and 10. During the construction on Lots 9 and 10, no construction equipment parking and or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way or within the drip line of the protected trees on Lot 9 and 10. • That the dwellings on Lots 9 and 10 shall receive finalled Building permits before any construction, and .a design review application shall be approved for the development of Lot 11 before a building permit is issued for construction on Lot 11. • That there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays. Biological Resources Summary: The site has been fully developed and used for residential uses since 1914. There are 6 Redwood trees on site that have been identified as a significant biological resource by the City Arborist. The 6 existing Redwood trees are located at the front of Lot 9 and are roughly clustered into two groves. The first grove, comprised of two trees, is at the northwest corner of Lot 9 and is 35'-6" from the proposed dwelling on Lot 9, 1 T-0" from the proposed dwelling on Lot 10, and 6-0" from the proposed paved driveway on Lot 10. The second grove, comprised of four trees, is located along the west side of Lot 9, approximately 39'-0" from the front property line, and is 12'-0" from the proposed dwelling on Lot 9, 12'-0" from the proposed dwelling on Lot 10, and 3'-0" from the proposed paved driveway on Lot 10. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with the a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of 1, 24-inch box -size minimum non -fruit trees for every 1,000 SF of living space. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. 12 Initial study summary 1537 Drake Avenue The 6 Redwood trees will remain on site in their current location with the proposed project. There may be a potentially significant impact to the health of the trees unless mitigation measures are proposed. The City Arborist has proposed that the applicant provide, for his approval, a root protection plan addressing all phases of construction, a footing foundation plan, a pre -foundation pour report, and post -construction tree maintenance report, and that the applicant schedule pre and final foundation pour tree inspections. The construction parking area and entrance established by the applicant on the construction plan date stamped September 23, 2002, including using Lot 11 for all construction related storage and vehicular parking activity, will keep the staging area for vehicles and storage of materials at least 50 feet away from the first and second grove of trees during the construction on Lots 9 and 10. Construction vehicle activity will be confined to the public right-of-way on Drake Avenue and to Lot 11 during the construction on Lot 11. Protective fencing will be established around the drip line of the trees and no storage of materials, no unnecessary trenching, grading or compaction shall be allowed within the drip line of the trees, and paved surfaces around the trees shall be pervious. The City Arborist also requires that a post -construction mitigation plan for soil compaction impacts during construction be submitted for his approval and that an inspection be scheduled by the applicant before a demolition permit is issued to insure that the tree protection measures are being met. These measures will reduce the impact of construction to a less than significant level. Mitigation: • The applicant shall submit a root protection area plan to the City Arborist for approval before a demolition permit is issued by the Building Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures. • The applicant shall submit a post -construction mitigation plan for soil compaction impacts during construction to the City Arborist for approval before a demolition permit is issued by the Building Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures. • The construction parking zone established by the applicant on the plans submitted September 23, 2002, and any measures approved by the City Arborist in the root protection area plan, shall be established by the applicant and be inspected by the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued by the Building Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures. • The applicant shall submit a footing foundation plan to the City Arborist for approval at the application for a Building permit and before a Building permit is issued. • The applicant shall submit a pre -foundation pour report to the City Arborist for approval of protection measures at the application for a Building permit; and the applicant shall schedule pre and final foundation pour inspections to insure adherence with the Building Department. • The applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's report to detail post - construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing before the Building Department issues a final for the project. • 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 are being met. • That the licensed arborist shall provide a post -construction maintenance program to the developer and the property owners adjacent to the significant trees with instructions on how to maintain them and identify warning signs of poor tree health; the developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finalled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the 3-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City 13 Initial Study Summary 1 S37 Drake Avenue Arborist during the 3-year period. Flat work in the front setback and especially within the drip line of the Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 shall be pervious and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: All gas and electric services are in place with capacity to handle the net addition of one single-family residence proposed with the current application and a future single- family residence when Lot 11 is developed. The incremental increase to the use of energy is insignificant primarily because the new residences will comply with Title 24 requirements, while the residence removed was built before these requirements. Hazards Summary: This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. An NPDES permit is required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways. Noise Summary: The site has been developed for approximately 88 years with a single-family residence. The new proposal will not permanently increase the existing ambient noise levels because it is replacing structures of similar use, which are compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. In addition, the site is not located in area regularly subject to regular unusual noise effects such as airplane fly-overs. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code and as listed on the construction plan date stamped September 23, 2002, which limit construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling on the site shall be permitted on weekends or holidays. Mitigation: • 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 and by the construction plan submitted by the applicant and date stamped September 23, 2002; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling shall be permitted on weekends or holidays. • 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. Public Services Summary: Because the project is infill, represents an insignificant increase in the total population of the City, and is located on an already developed site, the existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the net increase of one single-family residence proposed with the current application and an additional single-family residence when Lot I I is developed in the future. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place 14 Initial Study Summary in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. 1537 Drake Avenue There is an existing 6 inch sewer main in the center of the street that serves the properties on both sides of the west end of Drake Avenue, from 1529 Drake Avenue and 1530 Drake Avenue to the west end of the street. The remaining properties on the east end of Drake Avenue, as well as the properties on Bernal Avenue and Cabrillo Avenue are served by 6 inch sewer mains running the length of the 10' public easements at the rear of the properties. There are four properties at the end of the Drake Avenue sewer main, 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue, which are located down slope from the curb level. These four properties have a history of sewage backup problems. This is caused by the fact that the properties have plumbing fixtures below the manhole level on Drake and by the shallow slope of the sewer main in the street. Recently the city replaced the sewer laterals to these four houses, but to protect against possible back up caused by foreign objects in the sewer main there may be an advantage to the private property owners to install backflow valves on their sewer laterals. The proposed project will connect one additional sewer lateral to the main sewage line with the current application, and an additional sewer lateral when Lot 11 is developed in the future. All of the proposed new residences are on the higher side of Drake Avenue and none will have below -grade living areas. A sewer capacity study submitted by the applicant (date stamped May 31, 2002) shows that the sewer main has adequate capacity for the flow in the neighborhood and for the increase of 33 drainage fixture units resulting from the development of the three lots on the site with single-family dwellings. There will be no significant impact to the capacity or flow of the main line as a result of the proposed project. The existing sewer main is on a City list for frequent maintenance (see April 8, 2002 memo from Engineering Department). The applicant is proposing to install backflow prevention devices for the four properties that have a history of sewage backup. This will reduce the impact of the project to a less than significant level. The site is approximately 60 feet from Mills Creek and slopes downhill towards Drake Avenue, in a northwesterly direction towards the creek. The site is tied into the existing storm water distribution lines which have adequate capacity in the system. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street frontage. Half of the residences on the 1500 block of Drake Avenue drain to an inlet at the end of Drake Avenue, which then drains into Mills Creek. Studies submitted by the applicant (date stamped May 31, 2002) show that the existing 12-inch storm water pipe has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional 0.07 units of storm water run-off generated by the development of the three lots on the site with single-family dwellings. The current solid waste service provider is BFI, which sends solid waste collected in Burlingame to Ox Mountain Landfill. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream by transporting the construction waste separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial. The City of Burlingame has recently adopted an ordinance requiring recycling of construction waste and demolition debris. The ordinance requires that 60 percent of the total waste tonnage generated from project construction shall be diverted from the waste stream. The applicant is required to complete a Recycling and Waste Reduction Form to be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official. It is required that records shall be kept and submitted to the City prior to the final inspection of the project. Mitigation: 15 Initial Study Summary 1537 Drake Avenue • 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. To establish erosion control and to prevent silted runoff from running into the creeks and storm drain .system during demolition and construction, the contractor shall place straw rolls at the front of Lots 9, 10, and 11 along Drake Avenue and along the east side of Lot 9 and the west side of Lot 11, and shall establish a stabilized construction entrance of a 4-inch minimum depth of crushed stone across Lot 11 for the time period that there is construction on Lots 9 and 10. • 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 percent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan. • All runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. Aesthetics Summary: The two proposed two-story single-family residential dwellings are replacing an existing single -story, single- family dwelling. The project will result in the re-emergence of three 6006 SF lots, where 6,000 SF lots are the predominant pattern in the neighborhood. The two proposed dwellings are subject to design review to insure that each is internally architecturally consistent in design and consistent with the existing size and mass of the dwellings in the neighborhood. Any future application for the development of Lot 1 lmust also receive design review approval. The neighborhood is a nearly equal mix of single -story and two-story dwellings. At this particular location, the land is flat and the area fully developed; no distant views or vistas are present. Street trees in the public planter strip, as well as the 6 Redwood trees on site, provide much of the ambience in the area and these trees will be protected during construction and remain after construction. The applicant is proposing to fully landscape each lot as shown on plans approved by the Planning Commission. The approved landscape plans meet the City's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance. The plans show that on Lot 9 the existing significant Redwoods will remain after construction and new trees will be added on Lots 9 and 10 to screen the two-story houses and garages. Because of building placement and added vegetation, there will be no significant increase in light and glare on site from the proposed residential uses. Exterior lighting provided on each lot will be required to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. The average front setback for the block is 21'-1 ". The proposed residence on Lot 9 will have at front setback of 34'-7" to accommodate the 6 Redwood trees. The residence on Lot 10 will have a front setback of 2T-8". Mitigation: • That this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance. • That the Certified Arborist report shall be submitted and approved by the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued by the Building Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures, and that the report. shall include any existing street trees and how they shall be protected during construction and maintained after the project is complete. 16 Initial Study Summary 1537 Drake Avenue • That the applicant shall provided landscaping on each site as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission. • That the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any demolition or construction takes place on the site. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES SUMMARY: The sites involved in this project have been developed in residential uses for many years prior to this proposal. The project will not include extensive grading or digging, since the sites are relatively level and there are no below grade living areas proposed. Any archeological or historic, cultural, or ethnic sites, which may have been in or near these locations, were disturbed or destroyed by previous development prior to this proposal. Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated. Mitigation: • That should anycultural resources be discovered during construction, all 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. 15. RECREATION SUMMARY: The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project are not presently zoned or used for recreational uses. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. that the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition,. including seismic standards, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability. 2. that a conditional use permit shall be required before any demolition or construction is allowed on site; and that the two residences proposed on Lots 9 and 10 with the current application shall complete the design review process and be approved by the Planning Commission before any demolition or construction is allowed on site. 3. that the dwellings on Lots 9 and 10 shall be completed and receive finalled Building permits and a separate application for the development of Lot 11 shall be made and the application shall complete the design review process and be approved by the Planning Commission before construction commences on Lot 11. 4. 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. 5. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission. 6. that the Certified Arborist report shall be submitted and approved by the City Arborist before a 17 Initial Study Summary 1537 Drake Avenue demolition permit is issued by the Building Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures, and that the report shall include any existing street trees and how they shall be protected during construction and maintained after the project is complete. 7. that the applicant shall submit a root protection area plan to the City Arborist for approval before a demolition permit is issued by the Building Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures. 8. that the applicant shall submit a post -construction mitigation plan for soil compaction impacts during construction to the City Arborist for approval before a demolition permit is issued by the Building Department for the existing single-family residence'and/or accessory structures. 9. that the construction parking zone established by the applicant on the plans submitted September 23, 2002, and any measures approved by the City Arborist in the root protection area plan, shall be established by the applicant and be inspected by the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued by the Building Department for the existing single-family residence and/or accessory structures. 10. the applicant shall submit a footing foundation plan to the City Arborist for approval at the application for a Building permit and before a Building permit is issued. 11. the applicant shall submit a pre -foundation pour report to the City Arborist for approval of protection measures at the application for a Building permit; and the applicant shall schedule pre and final foundation pour inspections to insure adherence with the Building Department. 12. the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's report to detail post - construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing before the Building Department issues a final for the project. 13. that a licensed arorist, 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 are being met. 14. That the licensed aborist shall provide a post -construction maintenance program to the developer and the property owners adjacent to the significant trees with instructions on how to maintain them and identify warning signs of poor tree health; the developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finalled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the 3-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the 3-year period. 15. Flat work in the front setback and especially within the drip line of the Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 shall be pervious and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 16. That the applicant shall comply with the construction operation plan submitted September 23, 2002, and letter dated November 5, 2002, from Miller Development, which identifies a construction parking area and stabilized entrance on Lot 11 for the duration of construction on Lots 9 and 10. During the construction on Lots 9 and 10, no construction equipment parking and or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way or within the drip line of the protected trees on 18 Initial Study Summary Lot 9 and 10. 1537 Drake Avenue 17. that there shall no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lots 9, 10, or 11. 18. that no construction equipment parking and or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during demolition of the site or during the duration of construction of Lots 9 and 10. 19. 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 and by the construction plan submitted by the applicant and date stamped September 23, 2002; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed. 24. 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 comer of Lot 9, with a 2-inch copper pipe, as directed and approved by the City Engineer. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. that to establish erosion control and to prevent silted runoff from running into the creeks and storm drain system during demolition and construction, the contractor shall place straw rolls at the front -of Lots 9, 10, and 11 along Drake Avenue and along the east side of Lot 9 and the west side of Lot 11, and shall establish a stabilized construction entrance of a 4-inch minimum depth of crushed stone across Lot 11 for the time period that there is construction on Lots 9 and 10. 19 ,J Initial Study -Summary 1537 Drake Avenue 28. 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. 29. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. 30. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance. 31. that the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any demolition or construction takes place on the site. 32. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. 33. 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. 20 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THREE RE-EMERGING LOTS, THREE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, AND TWO ATTACHED GARAGES 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 a conditional use permit, design review and special permits for three re-emerging lots, three new two-story single-family dwellings and two attached gara es at 1537 Drake Avenue, 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 May 27, 2003, 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, conditional use permit, design review and special permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, design review and special permits 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 27th day of May, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, design review and special permits 1537 DRAKE AVENUE effective June 2, 2003 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 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.5; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building or the tree protection plan 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; 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 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 City Arborist's 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 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 the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 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 Lot 9 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified Arborist, and the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to and approved by the City Arborist prior to any demolition or construction on site; that the established root protection fencing shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction; 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; 29. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any grading or digging activities, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, grading for the driveway on Lot 10, and during the digging of the fence post holes for the fence between Lots 9 and 10; 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 4 Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately, 30. 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 of at least 90 %; 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 consulting arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; and that if at any time the consulting 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, 31. that all pier holes for the foundations on Lot 9 and 10 shall be hand dug to a depth of 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 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the consulting 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; 33. that the applicant shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to any landscaping or fence installation on the site, including irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; 34. that the post holes shall be hand -dug 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; and 35. that the developer shall be responsible for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees on Lot 9, including deep root fertilizing beginning in May 2003, and including the recommendations of the April 28, 2003 Mayne Tree Company report; and that the developer shall submit a licensed arborist report to the Planning Department to address the health of the trees one year after the completion of the construction and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; the developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 5 years after construction is finalled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the 5-year period. 5 c�rr oN CITY OF BURLINGAME OVA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1537 DRAKE AVENUE Public hearing to review and consider modification to, or suspension of, the conditional use permit for re-emergence of three parcels previously merged by a structure, design review for three new single-family residences and special permits for two attached garages at: 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-033-030). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, December 8, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: November 26, 2003 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the app] to the meeting ai Burlingame, Cal' 0 If you chall ge t raising onl . hos described ii. t at or prior ti i thu, Property o ers tenants ab t thi 558-7250. dank ` Margaret Aro City Planner. PU PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME e ay be reviewed prior 1 Primrose Road, C A L i F 4i k *d I A 4 rL� ICE (Please refer to other side) I- limited to is hearing, to the city ming their call (650)