Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2740 Summit Dr - Staff Report4'(- , ZW-D S- »-,�f7j r� ue S A N M A T E D C 0 U N T Y P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the San Mateo County Planning Commision will hold a PUBLIC HEARING to consider the matters listed on the following agenda at the date, time, and location shown. k � C k:. i Vim D MEETING NO. 936 February 25, 1981 FEB 2 3 1981 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. In the Chambers of the Board of Supervisors, Hall of Justice and Records, Redwood City. AGENDA ROLL CALL: 9:00 a.m. Commissioners: Levin, Mainini, Pavellas, Radisch, Thomas Advisory Members: Sans, McCracken, Eich CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES for the meeting of February 11, 1981. 1. AUGUST ASCANI - SMJ 80-2 Request to allow approval of the reduction of the number of airspace condominium units from the 15 units approved in May, 1980, to a proposed 11 units. Location is 215 E. O'Keefe St., East Palo Alto, APN 063-442-130. Staff Planner: Sky Dalton. 30 property owners notified. 2. ROBERT RYAN, ET AL - SMN 80-26 (Appeal) Appeal of the Zoning Hearing Officer's approval of a minor subdivision located at 2740 Summit Drive, Burlingame, APN 027-221-060. Staff Planner: Terry Burnes. 10:00 a.m. 3. TIMOTHY E. MORAN PAD 81-1 Request for a Planned Agricultural Permit for reconstruction and an addition to a residence on "other lands suitable for agriculture" within the Planned Agricultural District. Location is 99 Verde Rd., Half Moon Bay, APN 066-180-050. Staff Planner: Sky Dalton. 4 property owners notified. over 4. TIMOTHY E. MORAN AR 80-19 Request for an Architectural Review of reconstruction and an addtion to a single family residence within the Cabrillo Scenic Corridor. Location is 99 Verde Rd., Half Moon Bay, APN 066-180-050. Staff Planner: Sky Dalton. 5. ALEXANDER MAYDA - SMN 80-2 Reconsideration of a request to divide 53 acres in the Planned District into three parcels of 10 acres, 10.3 acres, and 32.5 property is located on the north side of Purissima Creek Road, east of Cabrillo Highway, APN 66-210-240. Staff Planner: Sky DIRECTOR'S REPORT Agricultural acres; the 2.4 miles Dalton. THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AND TO BE HEARD ON THESE MATTERS. STUDY SESSION: Monday, February 23, 1981 At 1:30 p.m., the Planning Commission will depart for a tour of the Redwood City Sewage Treatment Plant and will return to Room 101, County Government Center, for a study session beginning at 3:00 p.m. Item #2 * * * * STAFF REPORT * * * * TO: SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PREPARED BY: TERRY BURNES FILE NO.: APPEAL OF SMN 80-2 APPEAL APPLICANT: Robert E. Ryan, et al. PROPERTY OWNER: Clifford Semmler DATE: FEBRUARY 25. 1981 REQUEST/PURPOSE: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TWO PARCEL MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATION: 2740 Summit Drive, Burlingame APN 027-221-060 SIZE: Proposed Parcel A - 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed Parcel B - 23,183 sq. ft. TOTAL 33,193 sq. ft. EXISTING ZONING: R-l/S-9 Single Family Residential, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot EXISTING LAND USE: One single family dwelling GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: County Master Plan for 1990 - Low Med. Residential Density City of Burlingame General Plan - Medium Residential Density ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: EXEMPT X DESCRIPTION: The applicant APPEALS the minor subdivision on the basis that: 1. "Condition #4, as added on January 16, 1980, requires a soils engineering geological investigation of proposed Parcel B. Such an investigation, limited to Parcel B only, is inadequate to protect the rights of appellants (located immediately downhill from Parcel B). A previous application by Mr. Semmler to subdivide the same parcel was denied by San Mateo Ccunty due to the history of drainage problems and earth movement in this immediate area." 2. "At a minimum, any approval should require that applicant install a subsurface storm drain to E1 Prado Road and further to adequately guarantee the continued maintenance of said drain. Furthermore, applicant should be required to replace any existing surface drain that would have to be removed in order to install the subsurface drain facility. Applicant should also be required to guarantee continuing maintenance of existing and new surface drains." NARRATIVE FILE NO.: APPEAL/SMN 80-26 -1- February 25, 1981 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: A. Find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. B. Find that the site is physically suitable for the type of development and for the proposed density of development. C. Find that the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 0. Approve this tentative subdivision map with the following conditions: 1. Submit a plan and profile of the proposed common driveway to serve both parcels, and of the extension to serve Parcel B. 2. Show on the parcel map a proposed easement through Parcel B for the sewer line serving Parcel A. 3. Dedicate to the City of Burlingame a 10-foot wide sewer easement through Parcel B, centered over the existing sewer line. 4., Provide the results of a soils engineering -geological investigation of the proposed Parcel B to the County for review and approval. This investigation is to be done in accordance with "Minimum Standards for Geotechnical Reports" in order to satisfy building and/or grading permit requirements. 5. Submit a parcel map for checking. BACKGROUND: This land division was placed on the agenda of the January 2 ZHO meeting. At this hearing considerable geologic and soils information was presented by the neighbors. The item was continued in order for the County Geologist to review and comment on this information. On January 16 the minor subdivision was conditionally approved with the addition of Condition #4, as approved by the County Geologist. APPEAL: On January 27, SMN 80-26 was appealed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Ryan, et al. All the geological and soils information submitted by Mr. Ryan was referred to the County Geologist for his review. APPLICABLE MATERIALS: 1. Notice of Appeal - R. Ryan, et al. 2. Letter - Law offices of Anderson, McMillan and Connolly NARRATIVE FILE NO. APPEAL OF SMN 80-26 -2- February 25, 1981 3. County Minimum Standards for Geotechnical Reports; Section A - Introductory Information Section B - Scope of Reports 4. Semmler 1965 Land Division Materials a. Planning Commission Minutes b. Letter of Denial C. Board of Supervisors Memo of Denial d. Newspaper clipping e. History of the Ryan Property RESPONSE TO APPEAL: 1. Notice of Appeal: a. The aRpeal states that the applicant "has been directed only to provide an investigation of Parcel B." County Geologist - "Ail factors affecting or affected by the proposed development are to be evaluated. See Sections A and B, Minimum Standards for Geotechnical Reports." b. The appeal quotes Section A, "Minimum Standards for Geotechnical Reports": "Where soil and/or geologic hazards are identified on or near the site, approval may be withheld pending engineering and geologic studies to more adequately define the Zone of Hazard. These studies and resulting recommendations for the mitigation of such hazards will be the responsibility of the applicant and will be reviewed by the County." County Geologist - "Exactly. This study has been required by Condition 4 of this subdivision." C. The appeal states: Approval should require subsurface storm drain, maintain and replace existing drain and maintain. County Geologist - "This may or may not be required based upon the results of the research, field and lab work, evaluation and subsequent recommendations of the geotechnical study required of the applicant and the review of the study by the County. See Section B, Minimum Standards for Geotechnical Reports." NARRATIVE FILE NO. APPEAL OF SMN 80-26 -3- February 25, 1981 2. Letter - Law Offices a. Letter: "A claim could arise against San Mateo County in this matter...San Mateo County would be fully liable for such damages." County Geologist - This is a matter that is better explored with counsel. Most courts tend to base their decisions on liability on the fundamental criterion of reasonableness as it existed at the time of the act." b. Letter: "Adjacent properties should be tested and said properties wi�be restored to their present condition upon completion of necessary tests." County Geologist - "This is a requirement that is subject to interpretation. Unable to do in a technical sense because there is always some change. The wording possibly should reflect the term 'significant change'." 3. County Minimum Standards for Geotechnical Reports; these sections are included in their entirety. 4. Semmler 1965 Land Division Materials; the reasons for denial are listed. 5. History of the Ryan Property. ANALYSIS: The County Geologist expects the study requested to explore on -site (or off - site if so determined) studies to establish what preventative steps, if any, would be required. Reviewing County Departments/Agencies/Jurisdictions City of Burlingame, several communications County Department of Public Works County Geologist, several communications County Environmental Health State Forestry Planner TB:as n o v -i ri u _ --' n � Y o 0 O � c < �f D C 3 z CY) z o c� O 3 4I 14 U �o 4-- :i 0 S H144:SB�Fi V'. "" Fu q�j� t� vyo� UGH 1. F .r l) `� fy�'i ti f y/ rY� I �s (111 C1217 ' (rl - I t • ' d ` � s j +� 6 : sr !f if r. o!r y,y1 NA,r:(,,r.nrr.r:errr t II �r,A• U.At AC 1 %1 91 it Ano t . ,..r r'.i•ga.i Arrv,orn !nl rrt'A rf V�i s.. . A}S11JOA!t Atf(.AL hoA1C1R1 ott•flf •. A<A { /6 -'s �11 f':SANF,q!A;1 A+rmrrinAl(yv?U /A�II!r Adf/ lzu '.EJ • Y�'' ci /� ?+dbuil:fY!rnfrIrIAI.AfIfftl,rfAAfilrlfrl)Tin t ! Iar 111 _ •A�rr Pn r4'Pr•I rrrc A"IR 7llAl,f !/l l!'RA AJA gI fAiNrt D/JtAKf �D.A10} r..Ir aA . f 11 1 11,IF <ANI'll AID AY rrry A eu1 L/W AAIX IUf 0{`; I° Ir sr mn lif ! --4n it r+••r1.Y Arrq 1rA,InMf1 er cirY or MpWArrA PER 1, _ OVv//E'!• iAID leuNrY Or ,IAII I.fAIrTD, rrlNl !ft 7., frl•. _ nPARR Its Ali n1 rArt tti cARD`d t1!1 s„li+iiFtA7fi"vi r"Itl'• A fAA1D,r Jr .tY AC' JA AYn AUrA c _.� AyR�IrIGnr1AI r. Mp1A6 8 11111«,! AF .fl ACC pert r;lu nnrt o. ;31A si'rirTr-tRn'R t enA� rnlo 11111,1 OF nA nc. (P vt F/1r iTIn Tfll Pno� LF' AND fl�rrtllrfq�A7 .__._ _f.If�A n1� Jl•o SIC r1,ib�'�"d�'6 r11_—. .. aa1' 1Ir(Q/l�t A ,,,,.i,n.i1., At�R F! lrtfrt� �nr�t n. iur tit r.AI.l roan 1'"i !r•P A t If 1, pr'Ruff�:�/."/t (�AfCAAj 6iv1 ') .11_. A•IC I �A ✓ PrrRt /HG 1� LD cc 0 71 co Z NLr 0 c\ a 01 .n V) L O 1 I O ,. Q) •. O Ql 111 o- ;7: � n O 7 I" 1- u, In 7 it, 1_r I,A O fn u1 r� u r f.: 7 a n. t !Lr'tAlU1rN� t ,i' — !1'Antt E; DA,ftroAY L.,rrR r�rr itP VI v.."^ n+.arut,t � d (('atl •,rr, ul 'i��A• to=_x _. f1�t ,,, L^''t �i Ark' r1�ush •4 ' A f'wnf Iftrr cn�fA�j�• � . s1 r l .1YA ,rh PP • ,ht/ , ro] %AllI t A I "I ITr + too 4 AI cA M•.f.t y a �- Arrt A, rrm 1. I9M /1110 rAq M.r lfl ARRCD D N _-.�Q�1%.Yn[1U�.11.��-�:�-w>,�!-A.ti.© r • 'ww- tll N 7 E z O _ GJ _PiPrtl A41MARY_ MAP) lI'MTATIVE� A4AP fN rIFR }rTV 111I pl•RI INr.A(,,W PAN AMrro rPtfyr Y, Al f7R Ail►fra RIM MYfr/n A, %f1R /^D Al rtt RR r►1MrR r' 't C� "� ..,,_ lrnlllRI r7R.nlIpP"9A.-I'.i+tri'MAt�N�M�I+•' �t — R},1 .flompllr Pnn* ,fm4whVrf�fAlrrrNWA 1p•• •rrAlA ..�.-_"rjL4# MRMtltf I+rA Rrf$-NAr1 f' h' 1 /.D,lRR fop OPR 1r4.0100 RM1.N/R+,fl,rnfrrA+7,A'►+t LAW OFFICES ANDEBSON, MCMILLAN & CONNOLLY 1450 CHAP114 AVENUE P. 0. BOX 471 CYltus I. MCMILLAN Cr COUMM MUCH F. CONNOLLY BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 MILL WILLAM ANDERSON TELEPHONE 1415) 345-2588 January 23, 1981 San Mateo County Planning Commission Redwood City, California Re: File SMN 80-26 Dear Commissioners: In the above file, there is a pending minor subdivision sought by Mr. Clifford Semmler. This office has been consulted by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ryan of 2722 E1 Prado, Burlingame, California on behalf of themselves and other affected property owners who have filed a notice of appeal of the continual approval by your Zoning Hearing Officer. In addition to the matters covered in the notice of appeal, I wish to point out that a claim could arise against San Mateo County in this matter. If the proposed subdivision is approved without the safeguards necessary to protect the property of the owners within the Hazard Zone, and if loss and damage to property results to said owners, then in my opinion a taking of property by inverse condemnation has occurred. In such event, I believe that San Mateo County would be fully liable for such damages. As indicated in the notice of appeal, the technological investigation should include more than Parcel B which is the proposed subdivision. Insofar as entry upon the lands of the appellants may be required to complete the investigation, appellants are prepared to cooperate by granting entry on their lands upon appropriate advanced notice and appropriate assurances that said properties will be restored to their present condition upon completion of necessary tests. Furthermore, when the soils report is completed, we would request that a copy thereof be made available at least fourteen days before any further action is taken by the County. San Mateo County Planning Commission January 23, 1981 In connection with these matters, it would be appreciated if your staff would continue to contact Mr. or Mrs. Ryan at 415-347-0898. HFC/ad Yours truly, 7 6"1HU H CONNOLLY