Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2918 Adeline Drive - Staff Report (2)MID PAGFIC ENGINEERING, INC Statement of Qualifications Shadowbrook Gardens Skilled Nursing, Fair Oaks Shadowbrook Gardens Skilled Nursing is an 80- bed facility offering skilled nursing and physical therapy services. The expansive, single story facility encompasses more than 50,00o square feet on the 4 acre site in Fair Oaks, California. Associated development included site improvements for construction of new pavements and underground utilities. Extensive site grading included construction of new retaining walls. ��a � � y.�...�� - "` ; 4��-�r��a�._ __ ,.�.�' �� �� - :�� ' _.. � Shadow�rook5liliednursi.�gFecJi�� -c Oakmont Senior Living, Redding I 4 �^ � ,. �: � ' ,�� :°�< k„ � ;: � ;. � 3�: �` ` � ;�;.,�^ Constructed atop the bluffs above the Sacramento River in Redding, California the Oakmont Senior Living and Memory Care facility consists of an 85-unit senior residential care assisted-living facility on 4.g acres. '�-� T' The senior residential Assisted I_iving & Memory Care �s `" `� �� " care facility indudes construction of a two-story building, approximately 88,383 square O a k m o n t feet in size, with 58 assisted living units and z7 memory care �r,�ts. of Redding Appurtenant uses will include walking trails, gardens, a shade pavilion, and dining patio, as well as covered parking for tenants, including carports and garages. �„� �.��`: - �- _ ��7 _ --- � Mid Pacific Engineering, Inc. prepared the Geotechn�cal and Geologic Hazards Report for submittal to CGS to obtain approval for this OSHPD project. MPE aiso provided Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspections during construction of the project. Mid Pacific Engineering, Inc. performed the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the project and a full scope of Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspections during construction of the project. Shadowbrook Skilled Nur<.ing Facili;y Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 „ August 10, 1992 approv�d 5-0-2.on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. Appeal pr� dures were advised. _� f 8. LOT SPLIT TENTATIVE MAP AT 2918 ADELINE DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with attachments. ACE Monaghan summarized the request, described the request, the access to each lot, staff concerns including future development resulting in requests for variances not shown to be needed now, reviewed Planninq Commission questions at study addressing trees, soils stability, past subdivision of parcel, location of new access, street frontage dimensions; reviewed criteria for review of a proposed map. In response to Commissioners' questions ACE Monaghan clarified the date on the map being considered is August 5, 1992; any future structures designed for these lots would require review and a hillside area construction permit; no structural envelopes or designs are proposed at this time; a single driveway to access all three lots, existing and two new, was not submitted; the properties are located in Burlingame as are a number on that side of Adeline, the county boundary is along the street frontage on this side of Adeline, e.g., the entire right-of-way is in the county. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. James Fife, 2918 Adeline Drive, applicant and property owner, noted that they tried to design the project so that no variances would be required to develop the lots, there were cheaper alternatives such as having one house built at street level, but sight lines on Adeline were affected, and setback and other variances would be required. The proposed driveway shown will be considerably more expensive to build than placing this house at street level. The neighbor downhill wants his own driveway, the driveway has been shared since the 1970's, that is why one driveway was not shown for three lots. Also the grade for one driveway would not work. He has reevaluated the location of the telephone pole, and feels it can be relocated so that it will be out of the view of neighbors across the street. Charles Kavanagh, engineer, then noted that they had been careful to provide information and evaluate different situations. He noted they tried to maintain space between houses, placing the house off Adeline at street level would affect sight lines, would also need a variance to height in order to develop, so they placed it downhill with its own access drive. Robert Weisgerber, 2917 Adeline Drive, spoke representing himself and Beryl Linton, 2915 Adeline Drive, who could not attend. He noted their lots were on the other side of the street in the county; the new driveway would be opposite the drive shared by him and Ms. Linton. The proposed phone pole relocation would be a problem because it would affect their view, favored moving the pole 15 feet uphill; issue was where the houses would be placed, what would they look like; conditions �,,,► Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes should be added requiring the relocation of PG&E agreement for new location; city regulating the growth of trees which block Page 9 August 10, 1992 the phone pole and getting should have an ordinance views. John Hall, 2910 Adeline, spoke next, he lives next door and has the existing driveway. The lots in the county are smaller than the lots in Burlingame and should not be included in the numbers for compatible lot size, thus the lot proposed is too small and does not fit the existing pattern of lots; applicant will divide and sell, others will develop, concern with future development of lots; discrepancy between the proposed map and the map done at the time his lot was created, driveway slopes on new map appear to be flatter, shows them within city requirements but if eliminate flat area at top from average slopes, closer to the 17� plus slope shown on his original map; construction equipment should not use his driveway, driveway was damaged in 1989 earthquake, equipment would cause more, use for construction goes beyond what he thought he was agreeing to when accepted the easement; wife has allergies and would be seriously affected by construction activities; applicant spoke to him early on about division which could include both their properties, but no conversation since he said he was not interested; the Fife house was built first, his house was built in 1975, easement for use of residents of two houses; he would like to have a private driveway; he maintains the present drive. Art Kluge, 2900 Adeline Drive, noted he was opposed because of the danger caused to traffic on Adeline by parking construction equipment and the new driveway. If his property is damaged he wants to be reimbursed. Eleanor Zenovich, 2930 Adeline Drive, also spoke in opposition. No one spoke to her about dividing this site; she will lose view and privacy; the proposed off-street parking area for Parcel A will need high retaining walls below her lot, she should be reimbursed for any damage to her lot, her patio is already breaking up; the new lot is .35 acres, her lot is one acre, the new lot does not meet the pattern in the area. Resident and property owner, 2848 Adeline Drive, noted the street is 15 feet wide by his house, effectively one way; the Black Hawk development caused considerable trouble and the houses have not sold; water is limited, fire department had to use his pool water; city should end speculation. Jane Hall, 2910 Adeline Drive, noted that her driveway was so narrow it would allow only one way traffic, how were they to manage during construction. In response Charles Kavanagh, engineer, noted that the driveway slopes have not been detailed out, they are about 15 percent; a second driveway parallel to Mr. Hall's would take out a lot of trees and the geometry required by the City Engineer cannot be met, would result in driveways overlapping and the need to rebuild Mr. Hall's driveway, garage and retaining wall; they intend to use Parcel A for access for construction, cement trucks would be parked on Adeline and the cement pumped down onto the site; if Mr. Hall's driveway were damaged they � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 August 10, 1992 would not patch but would replace. There was no further testimony and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: C. Jacobs moved to recommend denial of the project to the City Council. She did not feel that Parcel A was compatible in size with the surrounding parcels, the development would affect Adeline sight lines which are already a problem and would make exiting the site a problem and the soils on the canyon rim are unstable. The motion was seconded by C. Graham who noted given the curves on Adeline the access to these lots is very poor, not safe. Commissioner comment on the motion: the negative declaration should be acted on first; on the negative declaration it was noted that the conditions cited exist, the negative declaration should be approved since no rare and endangered animals or plants will be affected and city services are available. C. Jacobs moved that the negative declaration be approved. C. Galligan seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers Mink and Ellis absent. Comment on the original motion to recommend denial of the tentative map to City Council: there were arguments on both sides; Halls would benefit if responsibility for repair and maintenance of the driveway were shifted to Mr. Fife; the biggest problem is the parcel size, the new 15,000 SF lot is not compatible with other lots in Burlinqame, smallest existing is 21,000 SF and the balance of lots are 75,000 SF or more. Could add street frontage to Parcel A to make bigger but then have lot with no street frontage, not meet code requirements; since there is a fire access road to the rear which may some day be developed the remaining 75,000 SF lot could possibly be divided again into two. The Commission called for the question. The motion to recommend denial was approved 5-0-2 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. � VARIANCE FOR ENCLOSURE OF REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AT 1216 EL .\ CAMINO REAL. ZONED R-3 10. These two 'items were withdrawn by the propert�r owner. 11. PARKING VP,i31ANCES FOR TWO STALLS_ A�TD BACKING ONTO A PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY FOR P��..NEW BUILDING AT �O1 CALIFORNIA DRIVE ZONED C-2 Reference staff repor�, 8/10/�92,� with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request; h_i�tory of the site, study meeting questions, required findings. Th��-�.�onditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing:" Responding to a question staff advised if the mezzanine were elim2nated it would make virtually no difference in the parking requirement; handicappe�i bathroom requirements were also discussed. � �{, 1 � �ti . � ',�� ', r , � MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: P.C. 8/10/92 Item# 8 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING �j� JULY 31, 1992 PROPOSED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION LANDS OF FIFE; DEED VOL. 6909 O.R. 94-95; APN 027-111-050 2918 ADELINE DRIVE - PM 92-2 This application is to divide a 90,784 S.F. (2.09 AC) lot into two parcels, Parcel "A" being.l5,217 S.F. (0.349 AC) and Parcel "B" being 75,567 S.F. (1.735 AC). The proposed access for Parcel "A" would be across Parcel "B" and the proposed access for Parcel "B" would be the existing driveway easement across 2910 Adeline. The existing house is to be removed. The Subdivision Code, Section 26.24.050 provides four (4) review criteria that need to be addressed in the Commission's review of the proposed map. It states: "The commission shall make its decision upon such considera- tion as, but not limited to, the following: (a) Recommendations of the city engineer; (b) Compatibility of proposed lots to pattern of existing lots in the neighborhood; reverse corner lots of key lots shall not be introduced into a neighborhood where such lots do not now exist; (c) Accessibility to safety services. The commission may consider grade of access roads or easements and require that such grade is not excessive or beyond the capacity to traverse by safety equipment; (d) Proposed grading and contours of the finished sites. The commission may require as a condition that the finished contour of the building site or sites reasonably conform with the neighborhood pattern where such pattern exists." Addressing these criteria, the Commission will need to determine compatibility of proposed lots with the pattern of existing lots in the neighborhood. The attached map and Table I give the frontages and lot areas of existing lots in the vicinity. From the standpoint of accessibility to safety services, there are no changes. The grades on site are discussed below. All creek lot requirements for development of a lot with a._creek (CS 26.08.075) are met. ` Page2.. Planning Commission . tr�`� �' � �. The Fire Department, Building Department and Planning have reviewed the proposal. The Fire Department asks for a construction condition for the roof, fire resistive landscaping near structures, automatic fire sprinkler system if.structures are over 5,000 S.F. and either on site fire hydrants and 20-foot wide access road to Fire Department standards or automatic fire sprinkler system installed as an alterna- tive. The Building Department indicated that the existing structure needs to be removed prior to the lot split because the existing house is on the proposed property line. The Planning Department indicates that the parcel split meets their minimum lot size and width criteria. They also indicated that lot compatibility would have to be determined and that any new structures would require hillside area construction permits. Engineering staff has reviewed this request. The following is a summary of that review: Parcel A: a.) The driveway access is at the maximum code slope (15�). A similar situation exists with the existing driveway. b.) The access as shown is elevated from 6' to 13' feet above grade. It would require retaining walls and fill of similar heights. c.) The garage backup area requires cutting into the hill and retaining walls 6'-10' in height adjacent to 2930 Adeline as well as parallel to Adeline Dr. d.) A possible house footprint is shown with 1800 square feet. A hillside area construction permit would have to be approved for any new house. e.) Is there excessive grading on this site? The existing house pad is utilized for the new proposed house. The garage and parking area requires cutting into the slope as indicated above. Parcel B• a.) The driveway access for proposed Parcel "B" is via the existing easement and driveway across 2910 Adeline. This is the present access to the existing 2918 residence. b.) Staff was concerned that the existing driveway easement may not run with the land if the land is subdivided. First American Title has provided the attacYi�ed letter assuring that the existing driveway easement can be utilized by proposed Parcel "B". r � . y Page 3.. 'Planning Commission c.) Parcel "B" is not a flag lot since its frontage meets City code requirements. d.) The existing driveway is proposed to be extended further down the slope to a level parking pad and garage at the proposed new building site. Retaining walls and/or fill banks would be required for the raised portions of the driveway. The level parking pad would require a 9'+ cut bank on the uphill side. e.) A possible house footprint is shown with 2500 square feet. A hiliside area construction permit would have to be approved for any new house. f.) Is there excessive grading on this site? Most of the house, garage and driveway require retaining walls or fill up to 10'. Some cutting would be required for the parking pad as dis- cussed above. Staff is also concerned that if the land is subdivided, and the lots sold, future owners may request variances to try to develop these lots in a different fashion then that presently proposed. One way to lessen the possibility is to require the access and parking pads to be developed as a condition of approval. Since the Adeline Drive right-of-way fronting this site is in the County of San Mateo and not within the Burlingame City limits, staff forwarded a copy of this map to them for comments. They responded with minor comments regarding the driveway approach and the need for an encroachment permit. P.G.&E was also sent a copy of the map and did not foresee any problems with its facilities or its ability to provide for additional homes. Several letters were received by staff from concerned neighbors regarding the proposed subdivision. They are attached and are a part of this report. Concerns expressed were primarily over construction traffic on a narrow steep street, construction traffic on the existing driveway fronting 2910 Adeline, construction parking on Adeline, construction noise, the obstruction of views, additional water demands, additional fire hazards, the removal of trees, the stability of the slope and the additional demand placed on the existing utilities. Through his engineer, Kavanaugh, Mr. Fife has offered some additional agreements and access easements to 2910 Adeline. Staff is not concerned with the increased water demand of one added dwelling. Flow concerns were expressed a number of years ago but the City has added a new main connection from Hillside to near 2886 Adeline that has lessened any concerns. Planninq Commission Questions: At the March 23, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that the following information be provided: t ' w ti Page 4... Planning Commission 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) Does the soils report indicate that this development may be done safely? The soils report indicates that both lot "A" and "B" are suitable for residential development if certain recommenda- tions and guidelines are followed. Namely the retaining walls and structures would have to be supported with pier and grade beam foundations. How many trees are to be removed and what is proposed to be done about the removals? Seven to ten trees are proposed to be removed from Lot "A"and two to four trees are proposed to be removed from Lot "B". The owner has indicated a willingness to replace any trees if required. Additionally any trees over 48" in circumference (16" diameter) to be removed will require a permit from the Park Director (and possible replacement). Do tree removals affect the stability of the slope? Attached is a letter from the applicant's soils engineer stating that the tree removal will not be detrimental to the stability of the slope. Should the Commission follow the reGommendations of staff and require the subdivider to develop access and the vehicle pads? The applicant has suggested that the lot split be approved with the condition that no variances be allowed rather than developing the access. Staff feels that although a deveiop- mental condition could be placed on the final map restricting variances, it would be difficuit to enforce and would not keep future owners from applying for them. When were the following parcels created: 2886, 2888, 2890 and 2896 Adeline? Were they created from a larger parcel? They were created from one large parcel sometime in 1960 or 1961. The minutes of the study meeting and tentative approval meeting are attached. 6.) Why is the applicant proposing Lot "A" access across Lot "B"? The applicants engineer has stated that there is not enough area to generate an acceptable driveway slope off of the Parcel "A" frontage. The only way would be with an elevated driveway and garage at or near the elevation of the street. The house would have to be close to ttie street and a setback variance would be required. (The average setback is about 49 feet). The vehicular sight distance on Adeline would also be e �. i�agE« 'b . . . Planning Commission reduced if the access was moved to the Parcel "A" frontage. Staff also notes that the bulk of the house would be more visible from the road and the neighboring properties. 7.) What are the street frontages proposed for these lots? Parcel "A" is 93.1 feet and Parcel "B" is 63.74 feet. 8.) The access to lot "A" is across 2910 Adeline Dr. When was the easement first granted and under what condition? Title company records indicate that the 2918 Adeline lot and driveway easement were created in 1959. It appears that prior to that 2918 and 2910 were both one large lot containing the 2918 residence. It would also appear that the 2910 Adeline lot remained vacant until that residence was built in the mid seventies. Findinqs for a Nectative Declaration: The Planning Commission must find, as part of the action, that based on the initial study and any comments received, that there is no substantial effect on the environment. The mitigations are to reduce the impacts of the project to levels considered acceptable to the community. Planninq Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. First, action on the mitigated Negative Declaration should be taken by resolution with findings clearly stated. Action on the tentative map is a recommendation to City Council. Action should include findings considering the review criteria indicated above and should be clearly stated. The following are conditions which should be considered for attach- ment to the tentative map: 1.) The subdivider shall deposit into the City of Burlingame Water Fund, one-half of the estimated cost of a future 6" water main installation fronting the site. The half-cost would be 62.50/L.F. x 157 foot frontage or $9812.50. 2.) All conditions of the March 27, 1992 San Mateo County Depart- ment of Public Works memo shall be met. (Attached) 3.) All conditions of the March 3, 1992 Burlingame Fire Department memo shall be met. (Attached) 4.) The existing house on the proposed lot line shall be removed prior to recordation of a final map. � Page 6... Planning Commission t , 7 , 5.) The applicant shall enter into a subdividers agreement with the City complete with,bonding. This agreement would require that within two years of the filing of the map or before the sale of the lots (whichever occurs first) construction of the driveway access and parking pads (including grading, fill and retaining walls) be completed. 6.) Al1 vehicles used for transportation of workers to the site shall be parked on site and not be allowed to be parked on Adeline Dr. All construction activity vehicles such as concrete trucks, lumber supply vehicles and other heavy construction supply vehicles shall park on Adeline and shall be attended by a minimum of two flag men at all times. All construction material shall be transferred on site the same day it arrives. 7.) Al1 outstanding bills for the checking and processing of this map application shall be paid in full. 8.) Any conditions the Commission may wish to attach relating to the existing shared driveway with 2910 Adeline. Phil' B.� ag n Associate Civil Engineer pa Exhibits and Attachments: Project Assessment, Negative Declaration, Assessor's Map, Aerial Photo, Table I, Soils Engineer Letter, Title Company Letter, County Memo, Fire Dept. Memo, Planning Memo, Planning Commission Minutes of 3/23/92, Planning Commission Minutes of 9/12/60 and 10/31/60, Letters from Applicant dated 4/1/92 and 5/29/92, Five Letters from Neighbors, City Attorney Letter dated 7/17/92 Letter from Kavanaugh Engineering & 6/24/92 Letter Response from 2910 Adeline. b:�fife.pm T, � �t � STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I. Project Address: 2918 Adeline II. Project Descri tion and Permits Requested: A Tentative Map for the subdivision of a 90,784 S.F. parcel into two parcels of 15,217 S.F. and 75,567 S.F. III. Property Identification: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 027-111-050 Legal Description: Lands of Fife per deed recorded 8/11/75 in Volume 6909 of Official Records at pages 94 and 95 Lot Size: 90,784 S.F. Zoning: R-1 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential IV. Existing Site Conditions and Adjacent Land Uses: Presently, there is one single family residence which would have to be removed for the proposed lot split. To the south across Adeline Drive are unincorporated lands of San Mateo County. To the east and west are lands Zoned R-1. V. CEQA Status• See Negative Declaration attached. VI. Project Data: Proposed lot sizes: Parcel A=15,217 S.F., Parcel B=75,567 S.F. � R y CITY OF BURLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND 452-E The City of Burlingame, by Frank C. Erbacher, City Engineer on March 17, 1992, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: ( X) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( X) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for Conclusion: Initial study indicated that no significant effects were found thai could not be reduced with recommended mitigations, for reasons stated, to a level acceptable to the Community. (See attached sheet) Because the site is in an essentially developed area and the development is infill, the other items listed in the initial study were determined not to have a significant effect. Signature of Processing Official Title Date Signed r i � Responses to Identified Environmental Effects: 1. Earth (b,c,e) This proposal will'require minor grading for the driveway access and foundation pads. Water erosion could increase during construction. The City will condition this project approval to minimize erosion by requiring that grading activities shall occur only between May and September; that stock piles of debris, construction materials and trucks hauling materials shall be covered; that the street be swept of debris daily. 3. Water (b) This proposal will result in additional hard surface runoff on the site (additional roof area and driveway area). This addi- tional amount will not be substantial and can be easily accom- modated by Mills Creek at the northern end of the site. � -� . � , �.C�B 'l1�" S� .O:C ��i�',C�1'C.�YYC.B CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAO BURLINGAME�CALIFORNIA 94010 I. Backqround PLANNING OEPARTMENT (4i5) 342-8625 1. Name of Proponent Jim and Diane Fife 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2918 Adel ine. Burl inaame, CA 94010 (Tel.) 415-348-2556 3. Date Checklist Submitted 3/17/92 4. Aqency Requiring Checklist City of Burl inqame 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Tentative Parcel Map: Lands of Fife II. Environmental Impacts ( Explanations of all "YES" and "MAYBE" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? YES MAYBE NO b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief structures? _� d. The destruction, covering or modifica- tion of any unique geological or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? _ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposi- tion or erosion which may modify��the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ � � 0 � — � 1 ' YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: -- a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (includ- ing trees, shrubs, grass; crops, and aquatic plants)? � b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? � c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any-agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or• insects)? b. Reduction if the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wild- life habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light and glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenew- able natural resouces? � � J � � � � �- � � -� -�L � � � �, , e. Maintenance.of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Enercrv. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? � � b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the. development of new sources of energy? � 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alter- ations to the following utilities: a. Power of natural gas? b. ComYnunications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? 17. Human Health. Wi11 the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazards or poten- tial health hazard (excluding mental health.) b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alter- ation of or the destruction of a pre- historic or historic archaeologieal site? YES MAYBE NO � -,� -f� � � -r� ,F� �� �� � � � 0 , ,, � IV. Determination (To be completed by tiie 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 the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet(s) have added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. �r I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature For -.,,\� � �,'�' ` y. � = o. M �,� ' ��� <�\ . <i ,,. � sr � " �' w ye _ \ � � � � '��� A� � � .7�/' � T } , � \ \ �e � o. .. � ✓ F �\\� \\ r2�� .,\ �'�, � � � � � � �, — e O , �� ��r I__ ~�� .+ � \ u � \��J —�`\ \\ '�.- `�� � ��f�� �" . . `\ \ � � N���S'to•E � \ y c�,,� ��\ �. s`'Sti`'�:� �3O a . � ���,\ e .N W � \�� \ \ 4'Q � O y � O "� ; ,ti � � `. �' O ���� \ � N���°E / IILLJ CJ9NYON � A~ \\\�� ti,�N pA�C/` ' •., /� ��\ o^�`,\ � •�, � \ �~ ��� y� �� � '�w 19�U � � `�� `� � �s5 �•t v ` Z9/0 �. � ,�, �5 ,,. 1 B 9P '���. _,t,ty ,p.��s. �i�. . . � � � 6`/ \�J� ` V y ``� � \ . � � �1 VSi'OS'L _ 3� � ��is. \ N: i�'�u_ b � \ Z �00 �?���r � ?i.11 � Sl2j� \��!• � sO SrF ��, n ��Q . �' ; ��'A �y� ��''.. �P � PTs� 5 � 9 \ n � � O� �G ��- WN T J OF �_r z8i�o 6 O : � Q° w��E.,�?� y!\oS''�y( 2Lh �,� .1� S3TY. 1 B.K: 56' J� � �H Ia.1a b�* O ,.4� . C ,�. � ' c5� . _ S� ` � ..,.•. . . . , - .. � : �' f � q�� . '�� . _ - ' , . . . t_ . f a �.,F �:: � �� _ -,,� . R . �ti�-- - i� � � � � � • ' �:� F k.:. ,�Gs c. L . . a Yi '��'a � � - '�} �S' i�''*b. . '� 9- � - h 9 }%f , £�y� j��� � -•��n � � kh4� X � �' �, ?� � ' � - ' : r . -.i's: : s ta � � . yy f . . . . . . . , . �., y .: . ' .^ -e.: - ' � � ' .. �_ p ... . • .' , `.r�,. : ' � . . - . . r .. _ , . � .. . .. _ - .. . ;ti ' �4� � .. " _ . ' - . � , . . _ Y:, ,.�, _ . . - � . . _ . _.,. • _ . " '.E. � - _ " """ � . . _'. - . . ' . ., « � �'_?r - ' -. t-.- . _:..L"' ' _ . . _ �� '.. ��.:_ • �-. .. •.. _��i . .. "k � . . . . � .'. i �_,_ x.� .. � � _ �tyt � `�-ip11Y � ' . ' . � P1 � 'K - { '�� y . �;, • —�' . �/ ... .. � �� "- � ; r r � � -�� F . � � x k . �� , . ' .. - . ~ � � . _ _ v. - . _. ..'t � • _ � � - ._ . . . - y_ . . .- . . ' _ . _ . . . . . . . ' _. . . . ' ' .._ . . I . . . • ..4.._ � . _. .. _.. . . - � . . . . . � . i_ _ . • ' . . .. . . . , . - . � 4-. _ " . . . •. . . . . . ' ' � . , .. _ „ � -. . ' � � _ . _ " - ' • � . � '2 . , .� . . �. _ _ . . _ � . . . ; �,. . . ' � ' ' S.' l� . -:_ . � � - . . � , t . - _ i . . . • _' i t `4 ' F{ : _. . . . � �' - . . . �- � - . �_ �, , : . . , . . . -� , - . - �`� �: . f � . . .,, ^�� � � ' � -�: �, �> � l _ + �' . � , �t. . _ -�-' . , _ �a � +y, .. f~ e _� C ��.4 r �-j . � �� _ '�14 �._ F 3 .«.K� � � .' � ` Y � �Tp�c' _ '� � F .. � :. " _ +5,..� _. - � 1 �^ 'y ; . i�,_ , ` � _ -_ x.. , . � . s .,. - � • _ . �� k __.+ � _ . �. 4 .., . � , { �S.�t +� � — l��r � .. � - � - ,�,� �ke i � �� .- .��4 �,y'�r �: � � . �- � _ t . ' _ . . - : � p� € - � �, ' C' _ ' 4 ., `,w '.j ` ; �'�- -�, •- � �.r�� � ]�`. '. . ' ,1 a , �'} .�'.g�- . �/' .- � �`•.: .�": . • . " � .Y. z = �_ . ;,� ���/r.�_ - r- _ ` . t�-� '•.c} � ���� e� ���'� �. t . f` �•i � � � _ ; , ' a '- -.�: . �� . � ; " - .�� ��•, �. . CY , � `. �� ; -;� f � - A .., c. . ' � t s �.� . .'_ .- .f . Y� i. � -. _ a1 � . . _ . . . _ - ��._" � _'� � � -t� - �'�' • �` � - '.• � , ' ' � j'' � �! . �t'!' .�. � : �, ' �; -�>� ,�. '<. ;,,,�._t' � tyi y ., ' ����tr �� - � ��.� '� �1�, �' • - � •• �- ` �• �Qt _.. , .� � # � is.: . . %�� �� „ ` �� '"i ' ' _ ` , . �` . - � .r. � � ,. . ��- �? a �. �. a . . - � .�-� . .. , �,t y �! t. ir �... ' �3� 3� # t � - � ��' � � A �� , - � ,��_ _ � r- � - �� - i�'t �� � ; �. sR` - }' . :•` � _ � ' ",�'� „` � + � '! * _ ._ j.; t: :,: _ _ ,. r . � ' � _ ,' :.�` . � jl aMr � �k' , � , � '�+"'z. � +.Y � . � � � . ' # - '{ � � � � _ _ � , . � ,� �' � . ' �. - . . - � - x "_ , ` ; � � �� � r - � � #. 3_ � .� ' � �^-, � r_ '���:;:_: ��` - . �' ,,�.. � -� — i . _ _.l. . ; `- . d� - y � ��.�,jr� `� � #:� 1k'� �` -_ . � ' . � ... � � � .i� - . . .. �� �7 i.'s. � . * .. . . . _ # .X"7! ►�,"' ;T :'+�.a:'v�' " . . � 4 _�`h,� -�,,, �.3�, .= �'x ^.. _ - „� E:. r '.. *e . ,_s� ; ��,�"�,'�` � -� ---.�.� -.� .. . • ''� "xi��:' ."_.. _ -�..: .�, _ .:.�.,._ _.. _:= � , , , Address Parcel A Parcel B Average PROPOSED DIVISION OF 2918 ADELINE TABLE I Lot Frontage Lot Area (Proposed Parcels) 92+ L.F. 15,217 S.F. 65+ L.F. 75,567 S.F. 78.5 L.F. 45,392 S.F. Comments --------------------------------- (Lots in Same Block) 2930 Adeline 125+ L.F. 78,800+ S.F. 2910 Adeline 131+ L.F. 56,900+ S.F. 2900 Adeline 171+ L.F. 59,900+ S.F. 2896 Adeline 110+ L.F. 21,700+ S.F. 2890 Adeline 50+ L.F. 49,800+ S.F. Flag Lot 2888 Adeline 63+ L.F. 22,150+ S.F. Flag Lot 2886 Adeline 121+ L.F. 12,750+ S.F. Average 110+ L.F. 43,100+ S.F. -------------------------------- ------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------- --------------- (Lots across Adeline Drive in Block 4 of Burlingame Hills ##2) 2933 Adeline 65+ L.F. 6,100+ S.F. In County 2929 Adeline 60+ L.F. 6,100+ S,F. In County 2925 Adeline 60+ L.F. 6,100+ S.F. In County 2917 Adeline 9p+ L.F. 8,200+ S.F. In County 2915 Adeline 65+ L.F. 9,500+ S.F. In County 2909 Adeline 63+ L.F. 9,500+ S.F. In County 2905 Adeline '75+ L.F. 8,800+ S.F. In County 2901 Adeline 61+ L.F. 8,000+ S,F. In County Average 67+ L.F. 7,800+ S.F. March 27, 1992 ��io�rikian Associates so�ls, Geology and Foundation Engineering , . Bogos (Paul) Torikian R.G.E./C.E. P.O. Box 280 Forest Knolls, CA 94933 John N. Alt C.E.G. Tel. (415) 488-0636 Fadil Sabuncuoglu M.S.C.E. Fax (415) 488-9129 April 09, 1992 Mr. Jim Fife Mrs. Dianne Fife 2918 Adeline Drive Burlingame., CA 94010 Re: ' Geotechnical Report 2918 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Fife and To Whom It May Concern This is to state to the_stability address. We base this on area geology a's January 2, 1992. removal. c. that removal of trees Will not be detrimental of the hill at your property at the above the type of soil, the type of terrain and the revealed in our geotechnical report dated We do not forsee any problems•vith tree If you plan to remove the roots also then we recommend that the cavity be filled in with native soils and be hand- compacted in 6 inch layers and seeded. This will minimize spot erosion during heavy rains. �You ve y truly, / "� - l � ogos ( �aul ) Torikian Registered Geotechnical Engineer �Q�,�o�os To��.�� rti��� r" Z y�, W 6 —3� -4 Z � ac No.000834 * ��/ � * �I��OF CA F����P �- ,. ,,,�. � �,�,'� � J33��� . .. � ��V�. \"i��1.' ���> �j�vl.:�?S�'� �,.� , _ _ �, i .y_� �b? .1/��' �� -� First American Title Insurance Company X] 555MAFiSHALLSTREET(P.O.BOX549) • REDWOODCITY,CA94064 • (415) 367-9050 ❑ 1100 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL (P.O. BOX 469) • SAN MATEO, CA 94402 •(415) 341-2691 ❑ 633MENLOAVENUE(P.O.BOX906) • MENLOPARK,CA94026 • (415) 323-7775 ❑ 151-87th STREET (P.O. BOX 870) • DALY CITY, CA 94017 • (415) 992-4606 ❑ 225 MAIN STREET (P.O. BOX 273) • HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 • {415) 726-4416 ❑ 401-F PRIMROSE ROAD (P.O. BOX 429) • BURLINGAME, CA 94011 • (415) 347-7076 ❑ 580 EL CAMINO REAL (P.O. BOX 1261) • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 • (415) 598-9400 June 29, 1992 Charles L. Kavanagh Kavanagh Engineering 708 Carolan Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 �� �� ! ���L�. . � � � RE: 2918 Adeline Dr. - Order No. 379434TD Dear Charles; r ,� ,� ��„<�.>.-._,�: _ -y _ ._...�.-r•-=� - - n (N i} �� �kl i' , ' .. _ ��',; .1�' ,61�°`' ; 1 �� � - � , . E "�� JI i i _, �.� �f r: , _ ._. �-���..;�: First American Title Insurance Company will insure title to the easement recorded in Book 3664 at page�92 as being appurtenant to the proposed Parcel B. � The following is a quotation from a book entitled "The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land" by Jon W. Bruce and James W. Ely, Jr. published by Warren, Gorham & Lamont; "An easement appurtenant serves the entire dominant estate and is apportionable among subsequent owners if the dominant estate is divided. Unless limited by the terms or the manner of its creation, the right to use an easement apputenant extends to each subdivided portion of the dominant estate." Section 8.02. The attached copy of the document creating said easement does not contain restrictive language. I hope I have answered your question satisfactorily. Yo� ulY�`%%��,%�' �z�� Edward D. Webster � ... Assistant Vice President/Chief Title Engineer C � � � � • -- \� � O � O. � Qd ' �j,j a Zu� ' U `� � � I� � W 1 \ . ��MAR-27-1992 09:42 FROM PLANNING & BUILDING TO _____ 93428386 P.02 ; �a'i l°�� P,�, �. �- � SAN MATEO COUt�7Y b�PARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CQM�+IENTS: TENTATIYE PARCEI MAP - 2918 AUELINE URIVE APN 027-��1-050 -�CITY P. M. N0. 9202 1.) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APlD A S250.00 INSPECTION DEPOSIT IS REQIfIREO PRIpR Tp THE CON�IENCEMENT OF ANY 4f0�tK ViITHIN THE ADELINE DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE APPLIGANT SHOULU CONTACT KEN AU AT 363-�822 (590 HAtdILTON STREET, 2N0 , FLdOR, REDNOOD GITY) FOR TFiE ENCROA�HMENT PERMIT APPLICATION. 2.) A DRIYEWAY PLAN AND PROFILE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED WITH TNE ENCROACNMENT PERMIT APPLICATION. COUPti'Y REQUIREMENTS CALL FOR THE DRIYEWAY qT TNE PROPERTY LINE TO BE THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE CENTERLINE OF THE STREET. GRADE BREAKS WITHIN THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE SHOWN UN THE PROFILE ALONG WITH THE SLOPES. 3.) AN A.C. SWALE (NOT CONCRETE) SHALL 8E SHOWN AND CONS1'RUCTEO AT THE COUNTY DITCH LINE FOR DRAINAGE CONTROL. 4.) THE DRIVENAY APPROACH, WTTHIN THE ADELINE DRIVE RIGHT-�O�-WAY, SHALL BE A MINIP4UM OF 2" OF A.C. OYER A MINIMUM OF 6" CLASS II AGGR�GATE BASE. � CUNCRET� IS ALLQtiEp IiZTHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. ANY QUESTIONS, GIYE ME A CALI. i ��� 0 TOTAL P.02 ;:,; ; - - _ .. , � , MEMO To: Frank Erbacher From: Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal Subject: 2918 Adeline March 3, 1992 I have reviewed the tentative parcel map for the lot split at 2918 Adeline and have the following comments: 1. The proposed structures are to have noncombustible siding and Class "A" rated roofs. 2. If the floor area of the houses exceeds five thousand (5,000) square feet an automatic iue sprinkler system will be required. 3. If any portion of the houses are further than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the public roadway , on site fire hydrants and a iue department access road (minimum 20' feet in width) will be required. An automatic fire sprinkler system will be considered a reasonable alternative to this requirement. ��� n C��, uL Fr�l--i �(u-, �� ss Tb ,(1jE Y.�,�� � o�-� il,� �` � �s�r s -r• v (L �1�.1 L1S�,..r� o(� C �F,AY,AN (ft ^' ' � i Y t MEMO TO: FROM: � ' . PL / FIRE / BUILDING �Itl �j� ENGINEERING DATE: JULY 16, 1992 , _ ,. RE: TENTBTIVE PARCEL MAP TO SPLIT ONE.LOT INTO TWO AT 2918 ADELINE DRIVE � The attached parcel map has been scheduled for action at the August 10 Planning Commission Meeting. Please respond with any comments you might have as soon as possible. pa �J Gr,�, n � r�q c0 ►�r� e,c� �l S� 1'1'1 I� Gl� � b�¢� � d� lh ��t�, �� ����,.L a�-�� �'�� �� ���v ��J G=�I�YUFJ --�-j�.e� c(-f1�'.�.�.� li� `�?rc�c_ �aZ�'�`� • � � �'1�.�� Sm � �� ���� -, ,�h .�� �.�,�o,.,? �?'vtr-� ! �� I� � �'vi�i GiQ.� �1 G�M YYlnq ot Z � `� � c.�Sttd� �Y(�(. � f3Y` �(�'�"�'r 1 Ls ��� ' f�., D � � Philip B. on ghan 7� j�1qz � , (,�-� �.�rn��'n�1oi !� �t� - ,, J �l � l {� u-c r� a. �-1 �I dr� ��I''Y-G`. " V . � �61�.d �f'L�-�7 d'h ��rn. i % . b:\#1\rollinme.pm CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular called to P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: meeting of the Planning Commission, City of`Burlingame was order by Chairrnan Relly on Monday, March 23, 1992 at 7:31 Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Commissioner Ellis Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the March 9, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY \/ 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - LANDS OF FIFE, �� SUBDIVISION OF 2918 ADELINE DRIVE, DEED VOL. 6909 O.R. 94-95, APN 027-111-050 Requests: copy of the soils study; how many trees can be removed, concern about impact of tree removal on soil stability; is back of the property accessible from Mills Canyon park, is there an easement or just informal use, is subdivider or developer required to make access improvements; what are the rectangular boxes marked PA on Parcel B; when were the following parcels created: 2886, 2888, 2890, 2896 Adeline, were they created from a larger parcel; address the issue of driveway access; length of street frontage for each lot, total street frontage of undivided parcel; will driveway access to Parcel B come over another property, history of that easement, when and why it was first granted, why does Parcel A need to have access across Parcel B. Item set for public hearing April 13, 1992. 2. REAR SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2327 HALE DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Item set for public hearing April 13, 1992.-:. r ' � t � Bt7RLZNGANi.'E CITY PLAIv-NIIdG COF�4P�SSIOId STIIDY PhE�TIi1� Sap�embe� ].2, i�;64 CON1MiSSIO�S _ FF�SEid`.I� Cdr�i'Ii ISS�OI�TF�RS P.BSEI4TT Ciatulli Na�'te Diede�ic�.;A� _ Kindgg � 8:05 Martin � 8:20 Moor� I� orbe�g S�iaers CALL TO ORDER GT�Z� P��S��4T . _, Ci�t� y�'co� ne� K�rui�3. C�.�� E�ginee� iia� _ PIan.Cons�l.��n� gtarin Cennc�iraan Lo�en� � atudg me�t2n� of �he fiurlinga�.e.Ci�y Planning Co�si�sion, �e1d on the above �Iver� date �a� c�ll�d �o vi�der by Cha�rman Diecleriehsen at $:00 p.m. The folla�ring suh jects �are subr�.t'ted for Ge� rev2ew:. l. PROPOSED SIIBDIVISiOIJ 289t3 ADELI�IE DRIVE The Plannin� Consultant advisecl that i�ir, and j'1rs, William.Sehoenhardn �2890 Ad�1i�e Drive, havo fiiesi a ient.ative map taith t2ie City. �n6ineei� .iproposing a subdivi�ion of their:proper�y�into four lo�s... The propert� consist� oi';a large parcel with.approaches irom �1deline D�ive and i� approvc3da aCcess to each of the 'lots wi11 be requiped b�caus�e :pP.� the� steepnes� of the property. � The Consultant stated that to a:dYiere; to the pol.icy heretofore mai�t°ained by the Commission, stree� impravements must be Lndica�ed at.�he :t3me a tentative�map is fi3ed. �.. - The Cit'g �gineer,adviaed tha� �he..property itself is.-.within..the confine� ot' the City;:howevep, the street.is:.�ounty propert�a - S�s°essing the:.importance of �ihe flt�8r -{.mprov�tng .his one half of the atree�m � the. Coucmission �as adviseii i�y Lhe k].ann2n� Consu�tant to determine a minir$u� width for ths street to be ao �improvad. �� Questioned by the Consultan� whe.ther. the project should be c.onsidered on tYie basis of � resubclivis4on or.a subdivision, particularly in view of the in�tallation of public works and the subsequeat inspeetion of t�.e improvement� the Ci��.l�ttorney advised th�t the proposed pro�ec� should be �rea�ed as a fu11 subdivis.ion. On the question oP county-owned �traets, the.Commission was adnised that in the pas�t the County has ind2cated its wiiZingness to relina,u2sh its 3uri�diction oeer et�ree�s �o be improved in the iiFanner proposed on this occasio�, Following so�e discussio�, it t,ras tre eons�nsus of th� �ommission �izat � min3mutre s�Pe�� ` be�ween siK and e��,ht geet, depending upon � de-�e�inaiio af' the pr-op���y ].3ne, he es�abl3shod, _ � / / ', To i �ummar ze, �he s.pp2S.cants wexae adviaed that iZ) the g�neral "lag-outn of �he proposed p1�n �ppea�s sa�isfaetory; (2) a i,en�a�ive map indica��g sic�eet improvements sL�uld �e px�c+sented at the n�:ct- re�uiar meeifnb oP tiae Commfssiar., os� (3� �o e�ped�t� the p�ocoeding.rs � f�z�a� map ind#.cat4sig the �equired pu�i�ge werf� �provements � may� bE� �ubs�;.��ed at �he ne$t � regul�r meet3.ng� Sep�omber 26m.ig6o. 2a REzo�a1� �^�4,�sT Lo� 9s B�ocK 13� �otsr�, � BiFRr �plup.P�L•�; �n appz�ca�fa� E��.� raeQiBe� i�om Char�.es :l�s�on, �7�.9 Tc�ledo AvonueD Burlin�acno� requc�sti� consider�ation to a eh.ange in zone rn p�opePty located on �he easfcerl,y side aP .High�.and hvenue (Lat 9� B1cck 13, Tow� oP Buriingamo Subdivis3cn) i'rom .C-2 :to 7t-3, A�°o Hel�on a�pea��d in his o�n .beh�i�'. and s�a�e� his praposal �a erect an apartteEnt house on the propertsr�.: ho�t�9ves�, �o �oa�'orm to� � I�o. 1 Fire Zone pegulat2G� �i��i;� th� ar�a, he �rauld b9 requir�d to cons�ruat a"PciL�� ha� Y`�re res�, �c�iver blaek caa21 Stt�uctu�s the cosic o.' t.ri+sch would be p�ohfbz ts ea i.� k�.is case . A varS.ane,e w�,a tY�erePore rQquc,s ted in orde� �o COII9�I`tEC'� 8 reOII�-�ou� �'3:�+e-rest�ictiae buiZding cor�pattbie wi�h provi�fons stipu�at�d in :an Rs3:�one:.� �- � The PZa.xinirig Cons��tafl� � cobf3z�rned . tYie "�o, Z Fige_ Zone :;egulatiori" , a.nd a��ised o�' the cle�a3led prQeefl�e that wi1.I be requ`rsd to �ezoMe �he � proper'�� and �o aiaex�d th� Fire ?or� r�quire�c��ts a.nd �hc �3ngth of tiise . to take the app�op��.g.fie st�ep�. '� - APter conside�€�b�� discus:4�on, tiie �nestt megula�� meeting was 3chedulod �rheroby zhe Co�ission, by its .own motlaa, would inS.tiate pPLce�diz,gs to con@uct a pub3ic h�saring on the �:t�is�ec�; �of' rezo,3ix�; �he .eas��.•ly side og ��hland Av�r;ue, be��reen �'enin�ula Ave�.�ue ard B��yyy�ate� AVCilill.a The SBe�etca�y was ins �ructed to . p�ace �?�s sub ject on the Comtn�ssio� agenda. The applicat4on i'or� a change in. zone f'roiri C-2 to Rd� was withcil•atdn �by Charles Helto n9 pending tlie outebme. ef the proposed �earin�; �- 3. VARIANCE - UPHOLSTERY SHOP: 2�7 GALI�'OR2dIA DRIVE � . A co�m�xticat�on was receised i'rom 'the f'is� oP Ander�on r�ros. �. signature Oi oTACe{ Anderson, ewt�re�itly operatfng an upha:',stery st, p�a� �he F'ri�°ose Road and annoizncing intention� to relocate �ha business �.� 2�.7 CaliPornia D�ive.- A variance 4°rom a C-], to a C• 2 us �� � e wa.. r�eques te� , The Planning Cons�I�an� ad��sed that opepat3.ng uride� � C�2 us�ge and �hat Broso:is.ndcs�inite3y C-� proper�yen.. adjae�n� prop�rty Ys currently the Ioca�io� proposed bg Anderso� A pubiic heari.rs� an �he �pplication Por the g�riance �aas scheduled f'or th� rsgular msstingm Sep�emb�r 26,,196d. 1�.o SPECIAL P'?R�iIT a D�Y PIURSERY 302I� OAK GR(?�� l�V'EN�J� �:� ap�l�ica�bon _'cb a s��ei�? perxai'� '�o ear���a3�,zc� �ho o�a����iQn csf a Day `;���c �. .� � ' � 1 COI�9IRISS IOTdI'.RS PR cS aN'P CITY OF BURLIidGAd� .PLAt: �II�dG COI�i3ISS30I�T Qetaher 31 E 1960 __ � 0 CistullY (8:12) Diede�ieh�en 1�laricgn (8,15) Moors Isorherg StiverB CAI.L TO ORD;sR co�r�rsszo:��xs �»sFr�r OTH:':RS PRES:.N� " Kindig Ci�y Attorney Karm�l - Citg Engi.�se� r,arr P1an.Cons. Mann Bl.dg. Ins}�aeta� �alwell CaL.neiln�n I.o�n� A rsgular meetir�; of the Burlin�ame City Plannin.� Commiss9.on v�as held on the above ciate. Mee�ing eal.led to ordex° at .8;05 p.r�. - . Chair�an DSQderichsen nresiding, � ' R�LL CALL A roli call recorded the abov� memb�rs p�esent, Commissioner Kindig, havin� previously advised that he would be awag fra� ti�e City, was exeused., ��'�'1�:� --�--�.. Nilnutes oP the meeting aP Septsaiher 26� 19�0, submitted prev�.ously to �emi�ers, wers unanfmousl.y approved and aciopted. r'linutss of the s�udy msetYng oF OCtoi�r lOD 196Q, subm�.�ted prev�:ous2y� to members, were unanimously approved an�i adop�edo pFT_ Il' IOI+& • 1. SU3DIVISIpId: William Sc�hoenhard Pro-p�rt�, 2890 Adeline Dr�ve A map prepared b�* Philip B. T.ygren, Civil F.n.�9.neer, f9.led with the City �ngineor, proposing �o divide the prtiper�g-OP ;dilllam Sohoenhar8, 2890 Adeline nr4vee Burlin�me, into four parcels, and raviewed by the Commission at the stu�q meeting Of SBptemi�eY° 12 a I96c3fl wa� scheduled on this date for formal aonGideration, The.Planni:� Con�u].tants 9n reply to the Chair, reca3led thai wher� the map�was originally presented to the Commission, tiiere was dism cussion concerning construct9.on of additional paveme?^.t to improve a section a�' �Y�e s�ree� right oP wag wr.ich 1ie�s iJith4n �he nrQsen� � �ehoenhsra pro�r�� I�neso . . 0 f` .) In v5.e�r of sucli puY�llc wor•kFb ihe P2ar�.r�.g Co�stzl�an� $�La Ge�, �h� Commiss4.an a�r�er�. tha'� vhe applicat3on 'h� �rea�ed as ��uz��.iv�.s�an� subject to nccep�ana9 la� �he Ca.�g Cat�.ci�.. The City Eng3ne�rn S.n r�ply �o the Ch�3ir, �c�viaed �ha� the map has heen p�o�csed tns°��::gh his department anc� foun.c2 �o he �.:� ord��. The Chair s�eo�.�ed Fi�. 3�ygr2n who �eqt�estsd i�hat ra �l�e� than con- sidor the ap�l3ca �Yo� u.-�der th�; prov3siar� �f. �he su�clivi��an aa°� dinanaeg �h�� �ha Gotnmis�ion Lenta+c9.ve1� apnro�e �he r�ap�. �uh�a�� to ace�p��nce h� ths City rn�;fneer oi im�rovem�r,.tc plans, d d�:pas�� oP an 9.mprovem�n� �onc€ tr3�Cti the City F*�ineer� and fin.al ap�rova� hy the Camr�ifision upon completian a�' frrr�ravem�nS;e. rir. Lggren rscall�� that �he Co�nisslon a�re�� ta th�s praeedwre when th� Cravalho property, Vancouver Avenue a� Easton I3rivea ��as subd4vlded approximately a year agoa The City l�ttornep �dvised that tentative approva3 �.a� possi�le ati this time, that it was within th� authority of the Cor��i.ss�on to place cericain reservatfons to � met by the p.roper�y owner, as to public works and dedicatian of easemgnts. Th� Ciiy Attorney sug- �estod that tlie �p be returned to the. Commisf�lon for flnal approval, In reply ta a quest3o�i direated to Mr. I,y�ren concerning the a�°ea oF new .�ave�o��� to be installed, the Commission xTas advissd ti��t the o�rnar has f�greed to a mi�.imum og a� Ieas� six fee�g and, iahere apac3e pez�sRits, � naximum of eight fe��. � A motion was thex�eupon. int�oduced hy Coamie.iione±^ l�or'oerg iha� the Commission give tentative ap�roval ta ths 2-euuhd9.v3��lon t�pD sub�ect to eonstruction o�' new pav�ment to YmpZ�ve` Rcteline Dz'iv'en to ar� av�ra�� wldth o2' eigh't fes�; subjeot to agr86�mant between th� City Eng9,neer and the developer far the construotion of pu�liC impx�ave= ment; d��nag�s and se�re�r eaeements to hecomra a ma��er oP reaard th.rough recordati�n of proper lega.I do�z�m�nt:a. l�otion ��oond�d. by Cammissioner �Iaore and unan9.mously earried cm r�oll oail vo�e of memre r� pre sen�t e � HF�RDdaS 1. R�UBDIVISION: Lot 3D Block Il, Rag Park; And 0�' Parcel "A" Of Reaul�div9.s3on Of' Lot 1.2. nl.oak 55 Esston Addition No�. 5 A resurdivis3.on application filed vrith the City �:ngine�r by R.Ko and itathe Kenn�c�y and Sidney T. and DorotY� A. Johnsan, owners9 reQnectively, of the a?�ov�a descri�ed propertlesD was scheduled on this date for pu�lic h�aring. � Mr. Kennedy was in at�endanee representin� the�r�p�licantse The Commiss9.on �ras a�vised that tho Y.ennedy prop�r�y, at the end� of Drake Avenue, aruts the rear port4on of tha Ray Park pron�rtpe Referenee �vas nade to a 20 1'oot d�.r�� easemen� descri'hed on th� nap, whlch crosses ttis R�y Park Ia� a�C the crc-ek s5,ts ish�eh pa�llels Devere�ux Dx�ive. - �? � Agrii 1, 1992 Frank Erbachor City En�ineer City of $urlingame Burlingamm, CA 94010 Re:Tentativo Parcel Map, 2918 Adelino Dr. Dear Mr. Erbacher, i; �t I; z'._.._`_�-_.._.-.. _� __.. . .. ` � < � APR _ 2199� � -f ... � L /� t e L��P�. J� i1J��L�v 4'('��"(-:' � CIT{ EtF c_Ibi t�:^�r,,:.; t._.-_� -- __ _.. __._ _� Thank you for your le+tter regarding my tentative parcel map, and comments associatecE uith the Iastr planning commission meeting. Follot�ing our recent canverration, T will be resubmitting oux plans for thzs subdivision. Basically the change wi11 invoive accessing the upper parcel (A) with a drivQUay caming directly off Adeline Dr. at street lovel. This will eliminata the concern about the length and positioning of the driveway and house for this lot; eliminate the need for an easement across Lot B; reduce the nu�aber of trees to be re- movod and provide greater d'zstance and pr.ivacy to the nei�rhbor currently residin� at 2910 Adwline. It may requiro th� need �or a setback variance, If you only considor the houses within tha �ity limita on Adeline, the avexag� setbacic is a�prox. 49'. However, if you consider all houses in the immediate neighborhood, trho average setback is approx. 36'. Our proposed setba�ck wili be 2S', Which is J.ess then the nei.�hbor hood average of 36', but greater than at least two houses in the immediate neighborhood. Ka.vanaugh Engineering Nill be doin� the plans and Will forward copies to your department as saon as possible. These pFans wiil aiso include the following requested information: - city & county lines and lot frontage�, - caiil show Mills Creek at the rear of the propez-ty, - modify setbeck of ParceI B�arage to be a min.imum of 15'. The site distances have alsa Y�een verified to be over 150' in both directions. This is g-reater than the majority of other existing driveways on Aderline Dr. It should be noted that most cars using this strcet us��ally travel less than 25 MPH. �` I have addressed your specific questions as fo1]ows: 1, No response required by me, but this report clearly states that dovelopment may be done safely. 2, �umber of trees to ba removed? With the origi�al design, seven trees were to be removed from Lot A and three from Lot B. With the new plan, only three trees will be removed froro Loti A. With the new plan, Lot A will still have over 20 trees and Lot B will have over thzrty trsos remaining, after c�nstruction. I am more thsn uilling to plant new replacement treea. 3. Do tr�e removals a.ffect the stability of the slope? The soils engineer is greparing � Pormai response but has indica.ted tha.t tree �earovals do not affect soil stability. I believe the ci:�y �ngin�ez� �re �lso aware of this fact. 4. Should the Commission follow the reeommendations of staff for develapment aecess and vehicle pads? This is really two sepa.rate queetion� which I Will address as such. As to the first part (d�velopment access>; - I do not understand bhe reason for staff's recommendation. It app�ars you are suggesting I must develop Lot B first without bein$ able to usQ the existing access. The existing access wi�l transfer to this same iot. The Flanning Commission gave approval for tho construction of the house at 2410 using this same drive�ay. No damage was sustazned to this driveWay from this prior construction or from any other source in over 25 years. I.n places this driveway is over 2' thick (concrete). I have also assured the own�r aC 2910 that I wili be fully responsible for the repair af any problems caused by this construction. Given that I uill assume respanszbility for any r�quir�d repairs and that previous appraval was given to use this driveway, I do not understand why you are recommonding that this dxiveway can not be used for such construction. If for example the current house were to be acciden�ally destroyed, uouid you recommend that I not ba allowefl to re-build it? - While no longer partaining to the revised plans, S wi11 gzve a r�buttal tio this suggestion. I think staff's recommendation to make it neces�ary to=- construct access, build retaining �all� and gara�e pad is unreasonable far a preliminary plan. It places unnecessary restrictions and causes additional eosts to be incurrad. Staff's su�estion �ra apprppriate for approval of final plans, My suggestion to Rtaff is to approv� the lot split with the requir�mentr that no varianoes be allowed on the f�n.al plans. This �ii� eliminate stafP's concerns that variances will be requested on final plans. - Note that if staff sugge��ions are fo1l�Wed, I am essen- tially locked into developing both lots simultaneous!y if I am to realistically devei�p these lots. At a mini- mum this would zequir� me to build access, retaining walls and garage pad prior to preliminary approval. I.e.- you would be requirin� mo to invest over $100,000 with no assurancs of approval. I feol this is dAfinitely an un- reasonable request, wh�n a better alCernative is availabie. 5. No response required from me, but I believe 1961, 6. Why is applicant proposing Lot A access across Lot B? No longex applies With new pIan. HoWev�r, this was done on original plan to raeet se�back, slope and sight distance requirern��nts. 7. G]hat aro prapos�d street frontages? Revised map uitl show �hese. El. When Was easement across 2910 first grantod? House on 2918 Ac3eline with exi.sting driveWay wa� constructed in approx_ 1950 on original lot con�isting of 3.3 acres. Lot split for this property was approved during 1974, into two parceis t291f3 £x 2910). The existing easement was created at that time in order to a11oW access via the existing drive- aay to the only existing hou�e. I purchased the houso at 2918 shortly thereafter in 1?'S. The house at 2910 Was constructed several years later and given permission to construct his house and share this driveway rathez- than construct a separate dxiveway. Unfortunately, there is not sufficient turning space to alloc� him easy entxy. This exzsting owner at 2910 no� refers to this driveway as"his" and apparently desire� total access and use af this driveway. In anticiparion of sta�f's or the commission question ay to Why w0 are nou pxoposing a change, I offer the folloWing comments. This was my original idea and thaught. However, afber initial discussions �ith city planning & e�gineering; my irapression was that the second option was more desirable by staff. Given their ourrent re�gona$, I hsve now changed that assessment. I am wiliing and kant to work with staff and the Flannfng Commission to ensure this subdivision is done correotly and causes no subsequent problems with the City. I believo their are mutua.l�y agreeable solutions to all of staff's concerns and am Willin�ly to work with staff as long as thay remain xea5onablQ. Thank Xou, J J�mss M. Fife 2918 Adelin� Drive $urlingame, CA 94010 ,� , �� May 29, 1992 Frank Erbacher City Engineer City of Surlingame Buriingame, CA 940i0 Re:Tentative Parcal Map, 2918 Adelina Dr. Dear Mr. Erbacher, F ". ""�•.<�..�: ,> C, . } ��.v: _ f� ,� if 1 9 fi �i iEi t L [5��'��.. - �� . . f ... ,......_...�.... �� . . _ E �� �' ;�� ��� �U� � � ��v� e _ �^{;_t., _ �_( ;' Our final preliminary plans will be submitted by June 12Lh. The changes to be noted on theso plans include the following: 1.We have moved the location of the housc on the loWer lot (lot B) to conform to setback requiraments and to ensure that existing building cades and only standard housing will be constructed. 2.The upper parcel (lot A) and driveway positioning romain as b�fore. We had considered moving this driveway and coming directiy off of Adeline Dr. With an elevated drive- way. This would have eliminated the requirament for a nesr sasoment on Lot B. However, while feasible, this wouid have nocessitated rQquesting variances for setback and sight requirements and possibly caused nther problems for the existin� neighbors. While resulting in higher construction costs, we fsel the original design afPers the best overall solution. 3.Wo are proposing to modify tha existing easement betWeen properti.es located at 2910 and 2918. This c�ill grant the current 2910 praperty oWn�r additional easement rights and will allow him to re�oive turnaround and parking problems. We are a.lso proposing to create a joint maintenance agree- ment far the existing driveway, once construction of the new house is comple+ted. We are also Willing to establish load controls to ensurE that no damage to the existing driveway occurs. Please noto that this �roposal would only become effective upon approval of pr�liminary and final plans, � , � We have read the responses from ouz- neighbors regarding, our proposed construction. Wh�re feasible, We have designed solutions which wil! minimiae or eliminate valid problems our construction will create. Some of their concerns seem to b� the result of mis-information, some are very valid, while some may have other objectives in mind when raising "concerns". Paragragh 3 of the firat pag� desoribes one of the chat�ges we are cailling to make in ordor tn meet a va�id problem. The awner at 2910 told me he Would not objoct to my pkans, if ho could have exclusive use of the existing driveway. This is nob feasible, but with th�se above propased changes, ue can ensure that no damagr� occurs to this driveway and his real problems are addressed. Pleese note that when tre was using this driveway to build his own hause, he had no concern for the design of this driveway and its ability to support construction vehicl�s. Tk�e concern for construction Workers parking their trucks a.lon$ the roadside is another valid concern. The current construction (approved by Che city) at 2909 Adeline Dr. is an example. Was this at issue for their approval? I do object to being singled out, but novex the less, believe this is a valid cancern. It should bo noted that once the existing house is removed, there caill be significant parking space available below for trucks in existing garage and backyard spaco. We uill require ali workers to park in the space made available. Additionally, we Will post flagman for any temporary periods When it is necessary for large vehicles to be parked on the stroet above. Existing concerns over potential gas and electric problems have boen revie+�ed by PG&.E, who have not noted any problems or conoexns. Tha fire de�artm�nt has also been involved and we aill be complying with their requirementrs by installing sprinklers in �he lowar house. Th� soils ongi�bsr ropor� cle�rly states that no instability wili be caused by plannod tree r�moval. In order to reduce any pot�ntial vieW problams caused by the rolocation of the existing telephone doWnhill, we are proposing to move this pole som� 8' uphill frora its preseent location. We believe we have addressed all of the cities requirements a.nd most of the major concerns o� our neighbors have boen mat. Tho staff and coarmission should understand that if this sub- division is not possible, w� plan to ox�ensively romodel the existing hou�e at 2918. Either way, new construction will take place at this location. When completod, property values for all houses will be increased. tTnfortiunabely, construction cannot be completed silentlg. Thank You, ��:ti..._���.�--- .Jam�s M. Fife , , 0 Kavanaugh Engineering will be daing the plans and wi11 forward copies to your departTrtent a� soon as possible. Those pians will also inciude the following requested information: - city & county lines and lot frontages, - will_show Mills Creek at the rear of the property, The site distances have a,lso been verified to be some 150' in both directions. This is signifcantiy groater than the majority of existing driveways on Adeline Dr. Combinad crith our conforming to current driveway requirements, this should eliminate concerns over driveway confluence and additional traffic hazards cxeated by adding one more house, It should should be noted that most cars �sing this street usually travel at less tha.n 25 MPH. I have answered most of your questions from the previous hearing. Enclo�ed you will find the report from the soiis en�ineer, c+hich clearly states that tree remov3ls will not affect the stabiiity of the siope. We will fo11oW all of his recommendations after any tree� are ramoved to ensure no erosion problems occur. I would like to hear your formal response to my response regarding staffs recommendations for development access and vehicle pads prior to the next hearing. Again I would like to stress, that I do not beliove it is reasonable to require large expenditures of funds that will also' dictate buiiding plans and strate,gies a.t a preiiminarq stage, and eliminate ali flexibility that a future builder may desire, when othsr means exist to resolve staffs' concerns. As further clarification ss to why sre are proposing Lot A access across Lot B, please refer tq the second paragraph on the first page for the major reasons involved. This will allow us to meet existing setback and sight rQquirements, which We believe are more important issues than easement, even though this will rosult in higher construction cosCs. Please note that sufficient frontage exists to a11oW access to the upper lot without a.n easement. � Margaret Warne Monroe City Planner, Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Monroe, April S, 1992 This letter is response to the notice sent out to neighbors by your office on the proposed lot division at 2918 Adeline Drive. The signators to this letter reside at 2917 and 2915, immediately across the street from the lot in question. We trust that you will bring this tetter to the attention of the members of the Planning Commission. We strenuouslv object to the proposed division for three reasons listed below. 1. Examination of the drawings for the proposed new driveway shows that they are hiQhl misleadine, perhaps deliberately so. They do not show the fact that the placement of this driveway entrance would be directly opposite to two existing driveways, resultina in a confluence of three driveways all at the same point on a blind curve. The resulting hazard that this newly introduces on a narrow street is so obvious that it does not need to be belabored nor should it be tolerated by the planning commission. 2. The drawings show the relocation of an existing power pole in order to make room for the new driveway. The relocation of the pole is shown as downhill by an undetermined distance. However, as shown, the new location WOULD PLACE THIS UNS[GHTLY POLE DIRECTLY IN THE PATH OF THE ONLY REMAINING VIEW for 2917 Adeline Drive. Conservativelv, this would down�rade our propertv value by unwards of 150 000. Additionally, it would newly introduce a view problem for 2915 Adeline Drive. Further, this new pole location would appear to present a problem of excessive span for the power lines and cable to 2917 Adeline. The present lines are already so long that they drag down on the treetops. The changed location, being further downhill, would not clear the trees at all and would be very likely to obstruct driveway access b delive trucks at 2915. Convetsely, if the pole is moved uphill, the span would be too long to reach 2915 and the blockage for truck access would then affect 2917. The only satisfactory resolution would be to require, as a condition of the construction, to underground the power pole and run under ground lines to 2915 and 2917 all costs to be borne bv the occunants of 2918 Adeline. 3. Due to the proximity of the canyon, we have a fire hazard situation on Adeline Drive as it is. In the past, the mayor has gone on record as being aware of this hazard. Although a special line was put in far down the street, it is of little use here and would be a joke for the rearmost house on the proposed subdivision. Note that a hydrant does exist higher on Adeline (opposite 2930 Adeline) that is DRY, or at least was dry at the last canyon fire that I witnessed. Although the hydrant looks good, when we attended the city meeting on fire hazards it was pointed out by the city engineer that this hydrant depended on a connection to Hillside and that it was not reliab(e as a source for water. That is certainly true. Addition of an additional house at this location will therefore impact negatively on the fire risk for all of us as it adds a new source of potential fire withcjut commensurate chanQe in the availability of water. In summary, this proposed change would lead to an"environmental disaster" as far as we are concerned. Si ned: /���Gyl,�y , �"'^ ��Z�G!��`� L Robert nd Adrienne V' eisgerber, 2917 Adeline Be I Linton, 29l S Ade ' . � • `�D(�,� -�' � : � . - -� a-q�. '' � % C.t ry o.� ��iz�..i6,a.�� .D.a,�,d.r.v�s �,��r�.o� , OBJECTIONS TO THE SUB=DTVISION OF LUT Mp918 ADFLINE 17RIVE �1. Inenea,aed �a6b.i.c. yazwide on AdeX.ine Dn,i,ve cicut,i,n� cone.t�cuc.ti,on. Ade,Q,ine Dn.i.ve .i,d a.f�ceady oveneoaded w,i,th .t�ucb6d,c bu.a¢.d upon .i,t,a w,i.d,th and .the numbe�c os 6.Cind cunvea and dh,i,veuxcya, eapeciuCCy a,t .the uPpe�r. end. M2. PeJurarien,t;� yui.ia�,d di�e ,to addiyi,g ,two new houdes, -one w,i,tl�. a a�eep up-h.i,ZC dni.veway whe�ce .i,t connec�a �o Ade,ei.n¢ fln.i.ve, and uzi,th a "r�.i.e" v.id.i.b.i.P.i.ty oS dawn-h.i,CC .t�raSS�,c an AdeCine Dwi.ve. M3. Ex,tha .eoad on u.ti.ei,t,i.¢.�. , (al The e.£ec,t�Li.c poweh. .Ei.ne,b and .tharw�onmehe dupp.ey,i,n9 Powe�c .to uppe�c AdeY.ine Da.i,ve appewc .to be o.Zd, and may no.t be ab.Ce .to adequa.teCy aupp,2y gneaze�c poweic demand ob .the .two neur (mod¢hn) homet on Lo.t �`29,i8 Ade,ei.ne Dn.i.ve, pEu6 .the ne�.0 "upgnade" a.t 2909 Ade,Ei.ne Dn,i,ve. The on,i.g.inaC .two o.ede�c home.d weh.e bu.i,Q,t abou,t 30 xo 40 yv_ant ago, and we�ce. .. dea.i.gned �oa much .Cowvc. powe�c .de�narrd. (b) The. phe.aent ..oda.te�c dupp.EybaK uPPen. AdeZine Dn.ive'.i.d on.2y adequate bon. no�ura.Q. houaeho.Cd udev by zhe ex.i.v.tih.g homee.Thene .ib an .indu�b�,c,i.en,t va.Cwne ava.i,Pnb.fe bon 6.ih.e, �.i.gh.ting axd I have been .to.2d,by .the C-i,ty Eng.ineen ,.tha,t .theJce .i.d no e.cucCy neX.i,eb bon .th�;d de6.i.ci,ency .i,n a�.gh,t. Th.i.a mue.t be .inve6.ti,qa.ted and .the .impac� on .the neb.t ob �he ne% h6onv ob uppeh Ade.Cine D�r,i.ve mus.t be ca.�c,u.Zu,ted and evaEua.ted. (c► The na,tuicu,2 gc��eupp�y bye.te,,, ,f6 o.2d and .the neceaawcy .inen.eade .in ryceabwce h.eqw"v�.e.d .to 6uppQy ,the addi,ti.onaf hoube,d may eau,ae .�eah.e .tha.t eouR.d icevuCt .in .thag.i.a �,uce,�.Th.i.a mua.t be .i,nvea.ti.gd.t2d arid xlie .impaat on .the hee.t o{� .the ne,i, hbai,d o6 cippe�c AdiZi.ne Dii,i.v2 mu6� 62 ca.�cu.2a,ted (d) 7he heavy �ica�s�.c 6�.ow,no.i.6e axd conge,6.ti,on ab .th.i,b p�wpobed cone.t�uic.ti.on on uppen Ade.Cine Dn,ive .i.a e.6.tima,ted .to.P.ab.t 12 .to 16 mowthd and w.i,CC di,6nup.t , , . 2 (3d con.tinued) .the .Ei,veb o� a,EC .tJi,e ne,i.gh6on.t ob uppeh. Ade.Line Dn,i,ve boa .tha,t pe�ci,od o� .time on mone. �4. Ade.Cine Dni.ve and #he pnopenti,e,� on e.itheJc 4.i.de os 2918 AdeR.ine D2i.ve cui,P,e 6e mohe. heay.i,Cy .impac,ted .than any o.the�c tvcopen,ty .ix xhe baR.�owing nega.ti.ve uxr.ya : � (a) Lot 2930 Ade.P,�:ne Dn,i.ve w.i.CY. 6e dinectCy as�eeted 6y and pEac.ed .in a pos,i,ti,on 06 ��.�i,ty by .the �camova.f o� .tneea and euppon.ting hLefe,Lde�,t{�a,t i,�ou.�d be nequ,ih.e.d .to bwi,ed .the pnoposed house and dn.i.veuxty on panc¢,C��A„ob .eo.t 2918 Ade.f.i,ie Dni.ve.Th.i.s mus.t 6e .invee�i,qn,ted cu�d xiie pPana bon a.tab.i.P.i,z.� � .�o.t 2930 Ade.f,ine Dni.ve mu,at 6e appnnved 6.the G�r , (6J AdeX,ine D�,i.ve wi,22 be pQac.ed .in a poa.i,ti,on os .i,na.tab.i.City 6y .the nemova,C ob �icee.a and h.i,P..Y.a.i.de bon �he pnopoa¢.d cfn,i.veu�ay,being c.�obe .to and pana,f,CeC -to .the e�icee.t.Sf,i.ppa9e ab �he s.theet cou.Ed cauae dcu�,c�ge .to .the housea oppob.i,t . pwcce.f.°A° o� X.o.t 29i8 Ade,f.ine Vh,i.ve aa w¢X,e a.d .to .the gcu,ua.ten and aeweh. .f.inea .in �he a.t�ceet.Th.i.6 mcu.t be .inv¢e.ti_qa.ted and .the p2ane .to 6.ta6.i,Ei.ze �he a.t�ceet mua.t be appn.ove.d b.the C.i,t (c) Lo� 2910 AdeZine �h,i,ve cai,eC aZ.do be cWcec,tZy a�bected by .the sub-d.i.v.i.a.i.on ob Po.t 2918 AdeLi.ne Dn.i.ve . F.�ca.t .i.t wi,Ze. be .the�.to and w.i,FX. 6e ezpoeed .to a.f.£ .the cone.thuc.ti.on ob .the cfn.i.veluzye and xhe houded and .in addi,ti.on,.the de.s�icucti.on o� .the vxi,b.ting houee on .eo.t 2918 Ade.ei,ne D�c,i,ve.The6e d.i.dnupti,onb wou.Ed 6e -in addi.tEon xo .thoae .P.ie.ted .in .i,teme 1,.tlucough 3.above.The dn.ivemay bon2910 Ade.�ine D�r,i.ve wue nb.t de6.i,gried Son �he s.th.ee,t .type o� .thab6.i,c xha,t wou,£d 6e nequ,i�ced .bon. .the deaxicue,t,i.on o� .the ¢,x,i.s.ting houae,.the coru.t�uic,ti.on ob �he new cin,i.veun.ya and .the .iwo new houaee ou.tP.i,ned .i.n .the pnopoea.E.The evuveu�a.y �on 2910 .Ade,f,ine D�c.i,ve urab de,G•.i,gned �on .�ii.yh.t pabeangv�c vei�.i.efe,P.igh,t deCi,vo�cy ,type vana and pi.elz-up .type �'icueh.�,The ownen ob .Co.t 2910 AdeCine Dn,i.ve luca 6�h�! ��6�ed ,the owne�c o6 .P..o� 2918 Adv.f.i�.e D�cive o6 .th.e,ae .2inu,ta,t,i,on,a on .the cl�u.v¢cuzy. (See .�2tte�c o� 12-13-91 a,ttaahedlArc .inapee.ti.on ob .the dni,veuucy ,indi.eA.tea bome damage due ,to ,t1�,e 1989 e,wr,thqcu�ke and xh.e f,i.gh.t .thu��.i.c .i,t .i,e now expoaed .to. � .t; i` � � 1x4c con.tinued) In addi,ti.on .to .the above ,.the dn,i.veux��.doea no.t meet .the �.eden.t Ci.ty Code goK new cony,th,u,c,ti.on.The Code,ae deech,i.bed ,to me by .the C.i.t� Eng.ineeh. ,cu,P.P.a Soh a a,�ope noz .to ¢xceed 15�.Dnnuknga auppk,i.ed .to �h,e ocuneic o; .eo.t2910 Ade.Euie Dn.i,ve ( Son an o.thvi p�w f ectl by Kavanagh Eng.ineuing dcLted . • 8-29-91 and 9-10-91 ehow .the dZope a.e h,i,g{ut,b J7.94$nean zh,e uppen end os Ziie dni.veuray and no.th.ir�g .Ce,ad ,tyan 1i.68$ m,i.duxcy on .the cU�.i.vexucy.The ownu o� Zo� 2910 Ade,P,ine Dni.ve wi,ZZ no;t agae¢ .to hay.ing {i,i,d dn,i,v¢.eu�cy ,to�cn ou.t and he6wi,f,t .t.o aec.omnocfa.te .the du6-cti,v.i.d.i,on ob �o.t 2918 Ade,Gine 'D�ci,ve.The ownvh, 06 .Co.t 2910 Ade.Line Dn,i,ve a.Qa��Jeu iy hequea� boh a vcvci.anee .ta .the Code de�s�.gned i .to vo.i,d .tl�,i,a on, an� o�yeh, pcu�t o6 �he Code nequ.ucem¢.n,ta.Beeauee os .the above di.aacepancy and oxh¢n e�uw� and omi,aa.i.ona .in .the S.i.te P.Can,.i.t .i,6 co�w.i.deh.ed apph°p�,in,te �c� ana-the�c .i.ndependen,t awcvey Ge eA.�Zed 6oa 6y .the Ci,ty Ge6oae .th.i.a pn.opoaae ecul go 6onewcucd. �5. Theee o6�ee.ti.one and concehnd n.nd ,t(ce quee•ti,or�a .Q,i�,�t¢.d ,in .the PZann.ing Commi.aa.i.on n.epo�r.t ab �he,ih. meeting ob 3-23-92,and any au6deqcu�n.t p.�ann.i,ng Commi.aa.i.on quee�i.on.a,mua.t 6e addneaed and bc�ti.asccctony nnawe� g�,ven #o.the ne,i.gh6onb ob .Q.o.t 2918 AdeC�.i�,e Dn,i,ve. M6. The �a,ZQ.ouiing ,f,e Q,�i,b.t ob que�,ti,on.� by .the eone¢nned ne.i.gh6ond o� uppv�c AdeP�.ne Dn.i,ve. i: Haa an ¢nv,ihomen,ta.0 ,impa.e� �po� been b.i,Ced and apprtoved? 2.A2e a+�y �rahe on bpec,imen ,type ,t�.ee,a on. e{vucba .to 6e dee.t�wyed? 3.Wha.t eoru.i,de�ca,ti.on {ui,e been g.iven .to �he .impae,t .the n�u c1�,i,veuazy bon pahce.e"A" wi.Ce. have on .the dn,i,vvlua,ys on .the eocith b,i,de os AdeCine D�ci.ve? 4.(Uha.t eons.i,dz�ca.ti.on hae biex g�,ven .to.the e6beet .th.i.a au6-di.v.i.e�.on wi,22 have on Canyon w.i,fdX,i,be Pn¢,av,,ve? S.Ulha.t cons.uie�ca.ti.on hae been g.�ven .ta .the ne2oca�i.on o� .the u.t-i.ei.ty po�e baom �.ta p'cebent pob.i,ti,on .to a po.i.nt wheJce .i,t wi,e£ obb.t��ur�t .the v�.¢w boh, 2917 Ade.einE D2i,ve? 6.Theh.e have 6een �oun aecewt "au.to"acci,den,te,,(yivo.�v.ing a can ove�c .the {u,P,2 on uppe�c Ade.Cine Dn,i.ve unde�e wha,t wouZd be eona�.de�eed no�una.e .t�ca�g.i.e. eondLti.one Ca na-t�ccu.ti.on wohhehb veh.i.e2e6 and de.�.i.ve�cy .ticueh.6 wou.Pd on.ey .i,ne�ceabe .the hazzah 7.whu.t cona-i.de�ca.ti.on ha,a been g.�ven .to .the esbeet'�hea,tyZe ob houae .ta 6e 6u,i,P.t an pcv�eeC "A"on "B" wou.P.d hccve on .the o.the�c homed an uppe�e Adeeine Da,i,ve7 8.why u�,e .t{�Q p�p�l,o�� � 2g33 AdeX,i.ne D�r,i,ve no.t na�i.s�,ed ab .the pn,opoeed eub-di,v.i.e.i.on o� 2o.t 2918 Ade.�i.ne Dh.i,ve? %� N7. Lia.t ob conce�uied neiglibons oS uppvi. ,ur�e�,�E. az.r.,,e: I.John E Jane Hne2 2910 AdeCixe�p�, �'��,( ��.� 2.E�Cea+lOh ZeitUV�.ch 2930 � � �.�,,,�,c� G�!��r�,�c„�� 3.AZbe��t ;EJeanne St�vrn 2929 , � 4.Robeh.t E Adn,f.eruie Gkui.6yea.(�en 2917 AdeCZne ��L�'!o�'c``</��,eLO 5'a'`�i`�` ��u�ean KCuge 2900 Ade,f,u�e � 4/� � � �" ��C� 6James Budd 2921 Ade�i,ne . 7.p�e�c E Joartne .Gw�,�,aojt 2905 Ade.?,�ne � ^ �'�-- �t C' {ZZt.��. B.Hoe� E AmeX,ia Guhev.i.tz 2k96 Acf22u � 9.���ea E.Wanda Gu.txn.e 2901 Ade,Ci.ne. ���"��� ^' Bvu Q Li,r �XX�Oi �- �l�' CT.ttQL(� ��{�,e� 10. 1 ztan 2915 qdp�,�ne 11. HeJc6eli.t � Ve�cg.is,,i.a Fwuve.f.0 2916 fl.i.ZP.�.ute Dni.ve ( %�0.-8��-�. ����a � (,t), d�a-�.u,v.e.eQ—, ��.' �,�� �p . ,��.� 291U Adeline Dr. Burlingame, CA., 94010 December 13, 1991 T0: Jamea and Diane Fife 2918 Adeline Dr. Burlingame, CA., 94ULU. SUBJECT: Use of M� Driveway � Heavy Equipment In View of your stated intention to sub-divic:e and, or, rebuild on your lot brings into question the use of my drive- way for the transit of heavy �quiPment. I have inspected the driveway and find that it has developed cracks, and shows signs of settlement since the 1989 earthquake. Based upon the above, I cannot agree to the use of my driveway by heavy equipment for either the tear down of your present house or the construction of a new home on your property. I am convinced that the uae of my driveway for traffic other than light paesenger type vehicles or light pick-up or delivery type vehicles could cause d�mage to it and. in turn, cause damage to the driveway retaining walls and to the foundation of my home. � If you intend to go forward with your plans to further develop your property you shoald devise some other means of access for that purpose. Very truly yours, �' / v i .�'CiC i ' � C �/ John M. Hall a w &: r �` RECEIVED - _- _ _ , . �;2929,,Ac�e 11 ne Dr 1 ve - - _. AP R . 9 -.1992 - _ .. - . , . Bur � � ngame , CA._ 94010 , _ . - . . . _. _ . _. ,. _ __ _ - • ..,... . __ _. _: -, __ . .. - _. : , �">iPi NN� � .. _ _ AprI l 8, 1992 ::. . _ : City of Burl ingame Planning�Coanmissian. :-�._--_- -- : ` _ Planning Department City Hail . _ - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 99010 - RE: APN 027-111-050 Gentiemen: I have received your notice of hearing regarding an application for a tentative map and negative declaration for a subdivision of the lot iocated at 2918 Adeline Drive. I wiil not be able to be at the hearing so I want to let you know my concerns. Have you fully considered the impact of additional constructlon on Adeline Drive. cfuring the construction process? As you,undoubtedly know. the building activity on Adeline Drive. when the "Blackhawk" construction was in progress, went on for a long time. This produced many, many extremely heavy truckloads going up and down Adeline Drive to Hillside over a long perioa of time, causing shaking of houses, noise, dirt spilling or blowing from vehicles and what appears to be damage to the newly repaved 1�deline Drive. If this pro,Ject is approved I would strongly rec�nend that heavy restrIctions be placed on the amount, length of time, dirt and dust failout. and frequency of heavy construction equipment using Adeline Drive. Have you fuily considered the impact of additional bullding on future use of water. both for domestic purposes, irrigation. and fire protection? When the "Blackhawk" construction was underway, the home owners in the Burlingame Hills area were required to pay for additional fire hydrants near the construction site. I would urge that first, you consider whether or not curcent fire hydrants and water pipes are sufficient near the proposed site at 2918 Adeline and. if they are not, require that the persons requesting the subdivision agree to pay for any additional upgradina or improvement of current fire hydrants and water pipes. Since we are still under severe water rationing, I would ucge that no new construction be ailowed unless an adequate water supply is available without causing further cestrictions on current residents of the area. rurtner. I wouid urge that a limit on water-demanding landscaping be piaced so that any planting be as drought-resistant as possible. Again. in the "Biackhawk° area. where the homes were built some time ago but� never occupied. the builders planted large lawns which, the iast time I noted, were kept in far better condition that I am able to keep my lawn because of water use restrictions. , , , 0 Mwcgcucex Monn.ae C.i ty P.eannen Ci-t y o � .8u�r,Ei.ngame SOl P�r,i,rrvcoee Road Bu�r,�i.ngame, Ca. 94010 Dea�c Ci,ty P.2artne�c= �ECEIVED APR i 31992 CItY OF BURUNGAME M�IJWNIN� OEP�'- Apt�,i,2. �,1992 2930 Ade,Zi.vi.e �tr,i,ve Bwi.�i.ngame, Ca. 94010 Sub='D�.v.i,d�,on ob Lb� 291 k Ade,P,ir�.e. Vru.ve I.P.i.ve a,i 2930 Ade,�i.ne 1J�r,ive,ne�ct doan �ta J.i.m and D.i.an.e F.�Se�2918 Ade.2,ine �n,i.ve) AdeZi,ne 1Jn,i.ve ha.ea.?,wayd been a vehy ncvvcaw,�,u,i,nd,i.ng naad.Ana.the.tr. diu,veway en�icance wou.e.d add �a�he co�sg��i.on and hazcvcdau.6 X�ca.�b�.c.Inow have a di,{�U.�c,u,Yx �:i.me e►tite�,i�izg �l�e e.t�ceet becaube os �he �ca.�s�.c,e,6pee,i.a,e,2y whev�the Meh.cy H�,gh Schoo.2 g.i� and pcvr.en:t,� au,tamab.i.ee� cvice �h.i.n.g �o ctnd �nom .the echoa.C. A aecand hou.ae cai,th. a.twa .d�ony hei.gltit (on pance.e. "B") woe�Y.d abe.t�cu.e� my v�,ew ob �h.e Bay,�h.e ,�LiWc.pa�r,t and �he Fa,d�bay C.i,ti.e,a.A.Q.e o� �h.e a�aeen� .�a� an up�elc AdeP.�ne we�c.e de��.gned .to be 5on e.i,ng.�e,p�.e,twceaque and .i,ncGi,v�.dua.� home.�. �on eco.Cog y n.eaaon.e I ob f ee� �o �lie d,i.e�unb.�,ng and denucli.ng o��he many �it.ee�s �ha,t wou.2d h.a.ve �o be cu,t �o aecammada�e a.no.th.¢fc ac�ta naa.d.A��,o nemay.t.ng xir,ee,b .tha,t bonde�c Ade,Zi,ne �Oh.ive wau.Cd 6e as a se�,i.au.b env.ucomen� .i,mpaat.7he a.teep unde�c.cu,t Son �h.e pnopoaed noad uti.?.2 cuube etcoa.i.on and damage .to �he h,i.PX.�.�de. Aa : head .tl�.e p.ea,n.a Son �he hou.de an -the ama.Q.ee�. uppen. .2a�(panee.� "A") on,ey 7 See� uti.P� ex,i.e.t between .ihe new houae and my pnapvc,ty .�i,v�,e.My hoube -i,e ducee�y abave �he pnopabed e.i,te and I am canee�cned �{uLi �he no.i.se ob can:s�i�.uc,t,i.an. w.i,P,� d,i��w�,6 �he pe.a.ee and �cayiqu,i,Z�i�y ob my home and devu,2ue my �nopeh,ty,My de�salce and nea.son 5on buy.i.rcg a.P_cvcge dec2ccded Bwr,P.i.ngame p�.ece ob pn.open.ty w.i.e,e be jeop�ucd,i.zed. P.�ea.ae eon6�.de�c and eva,eua,te my canee�cn.. Yocvu� �t�;�2N, ��t.�-�� � �.�eanan Zenav ch Members of Burlingame Planning Commission Dear Sirs: April 8, 1992 With respect to the proposal that the property at 2918 Adeline Drive be divided into two lots forthe purpose of removing an existing home and constn�cting two new homes 1 wish to voice my strong objection. I reside at 2900 Adeline and my primary reasons for opposing this project are related to considerations of safety and protection of my personal property from damage due to automobile accidents. The potential for a personal safety hazard and property damage is related to the potential for acute obstruction of Adeline Drive by two sources assoaated with the proposed demolition and construction at 2918 Adeline. Frst, large construction equipment and heavy tnacks will be going up and down Adeline on a daily basis for many months. Second, there is no adequate parfcing for workers on this project. Construction workers typically drive large pidcup trucks and they will have to park these trucks along the road. The presence of all of these trudcs will naRow the effective width of Adeline. Adellne Drive in the vicinity of the proposed subdivisfon is a very steep and narrow street. In addition, the road frorrtage forthe property at 2918 is between two "blind" curves. The combined effect of narrowing an already too narrow road by large equipmerrt and pickup trucks will cause accidents based on my experience overthe past 5 years of living on this street. At the best of times Adeline Drive is hazardous to drive because of the large numbers of people who go up and down at a great rate of speed. Daily traffic stemming from the students attending the Mercy High School at the base of the hill and their parents who are often rushing to drop off their children at Mercy adds large numbers to the traffic volume normally associated with the residents who live along Adeline. Within the past year I witnessed one collision at the entrance to 2918 that resulted when someone driving up Adeline became very "surprised" that someone was coming down the hill. In this case neither driver had sufficiently good reflexes to match the demands of the teRain and their combined rate of speed. A frontal collision resulted. In this acciderrt only the cars were damaged. In another incident that occurred last summer by the proposed entrance to 2918 Adeline a driver of a car going up Adeline became very surprised by the appearance of a truck going down Adeline. The driver going uphill tumed sharply to the right to avoid collision and in doing so that person destroyed several of my hedges that line the road. A more serious case of damage to my property occurred nearly two years ago and was directly attributable to construction on our street. In this.instance a car driven by a student at Mercy was going uphill. Upon rounding the curve by our drive at 2900, the driver panicked upon seeing a large cement truck coming downhill. This truck was working on the construction on Blackhawk Lane� a street that crosses Adeline. This car, which contained three other students� tumed sharply off to the right. The car was going at such a rate that it went through my hedge (destroying it) and proceeded to go down a very steep hill of about 40% slope. Fortunately for the driver and passengers the car hit a tree and stopped. Nobody was harmed physicaily� but my tree was destroyed along with several valuable shrubs. The car had to be`removed from the hiliside by a tow truck. A photograph of the car is attached and this inciderrt was recorded in a police.report. - Finally, I would like to cite an inciderrt in which my wife and I we�e nearly hit by a driver on Adeline. We were walking uphill on the'rtght shoulder of Adeline between 2900 and 2918 when a car going downhili at a great rate of speed swerved so far to his left that he nearly hit us. We saved ourselves by jumping irrto the bushes. After passing us the car hit and destroyed our mail box. All theses instances are related to a road that is too narrow, too steep and too winding to accommodate fast traffic. Any construction will aggravate an already dangerous situation. If a permit to construct is Qrarrted it should be on the basis of a olan that addresses the traffic safetv issues raised bv construction on Adeline Drive. Accordingly, I am suggesting the following be done if permission is given to demolish the existing structure and to build new construction I request that several requirements be placed on the permit holders: (1) That traffic on Adeline be limited to one-way during construction hours and that this be accomplished using "flagmen" stationed up and downhill from the construction. (2) That no trucks or other vehides used to transport workers to the construction site be permitted to park along the side of Adeiine during the time of construction. (3) That the developers of the properry at 2918 be required to post a bond of $250,000 to cover any damage that might be caused during the demolition or construction phase. (4) That the developers of 2918 develop a written plan that addesses all reasonable traffic safety issues related to their proposed project and that this plan be made the subject of a hearing to be held by the Planning Commission. Sincerely, i �� Arthur F. Kluge and Susan C. Kluge 2900 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 R � 7� �� July 17, 1992 Jim Fife 695 John Muir, San Francisco, ... '. G �c V�A� V� �� C�xx'�.��tt'1'�.e ,.� SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY NALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAO . BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 # 303 California 94132 Subject: Payment of Parcel Map Review Fees Dear Mr. Fife: TEL:(415) 342-893� FAX:(415) 342-H366 On July 1, 1992 I sent you a copy of your agreement with the city concerning the payment of parcel map review fees. I asked that the bill be paid by July 15. That has not been done. I understand that the matter will be before the Planning Commission on August 10. This letter is to let you know that•I will request that final approval of the map be conditioned upon payment of all outstanding bills from the City. I would suggest that you pay the bills p�ev,�ously sent to you so that this will not be necessary. �9ME� F . COLEMAN ity Attorney cc: City Engineer Planning 0 KAVANAGH ENGINEERING 708 CAROLAN AVE. — BURLINGAME — CA 94010 (475) 579-1944 FAX: (415) 579-1960 9125FIFE.9 6-24-92 Mr. & Mrs. John Hall 2910 Adeline Dr. Burlingame, Ca. 94010 RE: Fife Tentative Parcel Map Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hall: Attached are copies of: � y� ._. .�, , � �� -- .-_` ... - . . �; ' t� JUN 2 61992 , � ��u3 Uf� � � F � � �, �` .�E�� �S (n ��� - d 1. Sht. TM-1 "Tentative Parcel Map" revision #1 dated 6-24-92. The revisions from our previous plan dated 2-26-92 were in response to city comments. We added the proposed retaining walls and moved the lower garage to better fit the existing ground. 2. POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ACCESS EASEMENT SK-3.1 PLAN SK-3.2 CIRCULATION DIAGRAM Mr. Fife has indicated to the city his willingness to work with you on: 1. Improving your Zegal access rights,, particularly near the bottom of the existing driveway where there is not now sufficient room for normal auto circulation. A possible additional access easement is shown on the attached sketches. 2. Developing an agreement for the maintenance and use of the common drive�aay. This would include use during possible construction operations. Any damage during construction would be the responsibility of the one doing the damage. The Tentative Parcel Map as attached has been submitted to the city for review. You are the neighbor certainly most affected the proposed Parcel Map. We would appreciate hearing your concerns and �articularly your thoughts about the possible additional access easement and possible agreement for the use maintenance of the common driveway. Very truly yours, KAVANAGH ENGINEERING C . �. Charles L. Kavanagh cc• J� F' ran Erbacher W f�'`3•� 4- 3.Z by and CIVIL DESIGN, SURVEYING, UTILITIES -�J _ � t � � � � m � , .. — - - -- -- - --- 4: r' F'' _.._ _ - - � / i �� . , � � i x� /• �j ���� -�,y�`0' 3" 5' 7 16 . �� �`L . O •.�'. �� o ... � �,4 2��.��' 3 7.� , `�' �i p,"� �D-�° j-9�o. '.�w�/'� 1� v , n , y ��` � � ' • .! • • . • \ � \/ . �P i . , �tv . , � ' \ �Q� , J GLFg oop� j. '�t'• '/••,. 3�.��' Gj��i� \ 3P � - r' F- y ��o L � ° �- Q �`�l , v �� . . : . G�� � � � � � D' �3' . / • , � 1;L c �; '� �7 T�[ �50.�4 �51_4 .C��i � � ,' 3>9� � � \� / ��• � � � � �jCo f f�" - :'� ! � N� � b2 351 ' ' TW 35� �f; .• 358,'1 � ,&O' , �� � ' � ' - � 3 ,to � � � ;/�� v' � \ Ne,cye , TM' 3�,:��- .�,��°�` AK -T�P �/ , ;' \ H �R " . . ' � R �7 'f. � � ��vSE S , . � . - � . � i • �,�; � i1` `. yACCI ,- Tp a s � s 34 � � y�'�E 4il L.6;� � � , � . s� -as� :i . �,�;9rP� (` '-�� ;r � z. � ; , ., ;. � .6 .. , ' � Q 29 , . . ; 3�� o<joP�- � � • . 2� Q/ 3 , � MO / • � a _ /\ / . . �•• 2C�NC L� ,� ,3A, �� tj� ,.��� : �-� k^'J \ N � _ Pl(o �r; , Gt � � 3Cot !o(v �n T. w�� cic TV� �p.� , I�• . . �,�� � � ' � r ; ni �- W �, , .rP 3 � ,,' / /'^' , 3°jQ`�', , � Z f � : ''/ � � � �' o � � / h���„ I �. �� �P � � Z , /2,�'2. �, � f� `-� i ; � � 3g� � �P ��r// � ,� � W �'�i`3 ° ' "- ' /r �i � - ' �. �. `r7 � ,�;- . J 33?'.-�F - I/ 34�.. $.4�0,�,¢,¢ O � 3.',. �\ 3�ia•� ?�` 9 �f- � � " _ . �Y i h �7 �-_ .`�i �. �S � D: � � 71_4_3 1:52 h /� ! - � ' O _�. Y ,.�"' - -� �"P3-� 2� ((j ;GJQ�� �, i � / ^`� : / p ' ! "`�; . sFT J� � d, �,, .;o a � Y m� �� a;� �' 9.4r�- 3 LC� ,�Gj� .�.a .; ' 3 � - �e . ; � . � � ,��o , 2 � I r; ,/ , IJ.�:. �' 1 ; .y _ _ F . . /; • �/ `C . �� jF AasT T _ �� —5•a .. ��;.j�, ' /� � � g�P `'• � �'� " � / ur � �� , 1 � ��' c� � . e� � � ' � � . . 8 . _ � 'i � �, tl� � � _ :4' 20" E/ 3. 9'. ��. . ,'s.a�-.��,:�.� 6 ��2� m,,,,�-� ►. _ �„'_.^5 . 5c�� _ ��. _ _ ' `� P72 � � 3��' � E ro"oAK -a� . .. .f 5 0' `o � � ��s.� NE�. , �`��.' -o. / r � � � . = � ; 1�� � ,�a/�' , , ,.4�' �; - �, ------ ,.n I N .:.•�' : ; _. � j , �o g�,,� '1� �a U `'— A ---._ _ � / � � � ,..i W '�—_� ; � 6"' �� ,� '�� • � ,4 _--__'--= � '� iti _ • _._ 01 1 c,�p �(a �' !/ ! � 1 0\ . ...� p 3 � —u� �-1�.OQ c - 3 ,r � S� - • -3 '� y d ,� �, / �/ � • 9 �E �l' q . �- � �.Z \ d-� � .� �Q � 0� �9�. �9..� 33�-72 �. 4 .�7` �� ; ,{� � � � � �n � � 1 � ��.� 1 �� � cv O � �%�3 ' 34 . i I, � � \ �J� � A J. g3 �18'� OAK � � �fI•8 , \ v�. � ,:;: �A Q „iti,� � j35�- f � �,r£° ` \ ��_ � Z'. ...W -_ S 5� ��.��' ! ;a\ ��� ' �e� r,� `.- + 3��\`',� � _ 3. / i. , g3 ��f � .c� 5� 0 1 ' �;fR ,� \� 7i � d"1iG • , � ` y� . �� 3 - rN� S' ` � �1 �_ . , r,� >a ' �� I.� \ �g' P� ` i '\ 0 a� � � 3��•_� }4!,cR �i � `��►-Cfl , G�'11i . I � � 5 7 ,? �''O �`' 9\ �� / P92 5 ' � 04120" E '112` 1' �zc3• � �•!N� , , Z.� � � T� . � P \ 1 ( �eJ � , o" p- o ��✓�����. \ I �� NpV o . � .��s.. �,�� a ; •P` :. � ��, :I ..c.�t• �,-,_SE � . � . �.ai 3 �� .� , 1-«.., \. :. ,Q�'C'� ��_� 0 3 �_Z,¢ _ c�, Z����.�,�� " PQSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ACCESS EASEMENT 2910 (Hall) and 2918 (Fife) Adeline Dr, KAVANAGH ENGINEERING 708 CAROLAN AVE. PH. 415-579-1944 P L A N S K�.'S _ 1 BURLINGAME, CA 94070-2711 1 , 1 a � ^Z4�gL ���,�� ,- , POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ACCESS EASEMENT KAVANAGH ENGINEERING 2910 (Hall) and 2918 (Fife) Adeline Dr. 708 CAROLAN AVE. PH. 415-579-1944 BURLINGAME,CA �o,a_��„ CIRCULATION DIAGRAM SK-3.2 ,.�, , . ;- ; � �-{ . ��' ��� �� R1Y1 K y j r� ;; � - _ �' : S ^�. � � �. : j} � "; � _ � JUL - 81992 ' 2 � i � ' ��`-��j �" ' !C r .v {: . �` �''�: OF F!'•:, ia �;:.�-� . .. .,.,r. _�... ._..: _.. _..__ Tc7: Kavanagh �ng.i,n.ee�r,l.ng 708 Ccvco.�an Av. Bw�,P-c:n.game; . CA. , 94010 FROM: J. M. fla.?.2. SUBJ�C7: 'Phone Me.�sage 6-24-92 2910 AdeZine Da. 8u/c?,i.ngame, CA. , June 24, 1992 I nece,i.ved yowc me.�aage ne �the bub-cli.v.i,a�.on o� Lo.t 2918 Ade,Ci.ne Dn,i.ve. 94010 I have a-ta.ted my poa�.tion �o yau, �he C-i,ty �ng.i,neeh., and a�l1e�, uai,th negand �o my de.b.ih,e ban a ph,i,va,te dh,i.veway bon my p'i-ope�c,iy• I have na�t changed my mi,nd. S�%ncene.e y, / �y� �� c��— " -���'/ /i/^dL/��if � �/ J. 11d. f1ALL � . � � , � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes , August 10, 1992 8. I,OT SPLIT TENTATIVE MAP AT 2918 ADELINE DRIVE ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 8/10/92, with'attachments. ACE Monaghan summarized the request, described the request, the access to each lot, staff concerns including future development resulting in requests for variances not shown to be needed now, reviewed Planning Commission questions at study addressinq trees, soils stability, past subdivision of parcel, location of new access, street frontage dimensions; reviewed criteria for review of a proposed map. In response to Commissioners' questions ACE Monaghan clarified the date on the map being considered is August 5, 1992; any future structures designed for these lots would require review and a hillside area construction permit; no structural envelopes or designs are proposed at this time; a single driveway to access all three lots, existing and two new, was not submitted; the properties are located in Burlingame as are a number on that side of Adeline, the county boundary is along the street frontage on this side of Adeline, e.g., the entire right-of-way is in the county. Chm. Deal opened the public hearing. James Fife, 2918 Adeline Drive, applicant and property owner, noted that they tried to design the project so that no variances would be required to develop the lots, there were cheaper alternatives such as having one house built at street level, but sight lines on Adeline were affected, and setback and other variances would be required. The proposed driveway shown will be considerably more expensive to build than placing this house at street level. The neighbor downhill ;wants his own�driveway, the driveway has been shared since the 1970's, that is why one driveway was not shown for three lots. Also the grade for one driveway would not work. He has reevaluated the location of the telephone pole, and feels it can be relocated so that it will be out of the view of neighbors across the street. Charles Kavanagh, engineer, then noted that they had been careful to provide information and evaluate different situations. He noted they tried to maintain space between houses, placing the house off Adeline at street level would affect sight lines, would also need a variance to height in order to develop, so they placed it downhill with its own access drive. Robert Weisgerber, 2917 Adeline Drive, spoke representing himself and Beryl Linton, 2915 Adeline Drive, who could not attend. He noted their lots were on the other side of the street in the county; the new driveway would be opposite the drive shared by him and Ms. Linton. The proposed phone pole relocation would be a problem because it would affect their view, favored moving the pole 15 feet uphill; issue was where the houses would be placed, what would they look like; conditions should be added requiring the relocation of the phone pole and getting PG&E agreement for new location; city should have an ordinance regulating the growth of trees which block views. � � � ! � 0 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 John Hall, 2910 Adeline, spoke next, he lives next door and has the existing driveway. The lots in the county are smaller than the lots in Burlingame and should not be included in the numbers for compatible lot size, thus the lot proposed is too small and does not fit the existing pattern of lots; applicant will divide and sell, others will develop, concern with future development of lots; discrepancy between the proposed map and the map done at the time his lot was created, driveway slopes on new map appear to be flatter, shows them within city requirements but if eliminate flat area at top from average slopes, closer to the 17� plus slope shown on his original map; construction equipment should not use his driveway, driveway was damaged in 1989 earthquake, equipment would cause more, use for construction goes beyond what he thought he was agreeing to when accepted the easement; wife has allergies and would be seriously affected by construction activities; applicant spoke to him early on about division which could include both their properties, but no conversation since he said he was not interested; the Fife house was built first, his house was built in 1975, easement for use of residents of two houses; he would like to have a private driveway; he maintains the present drive. Art Kluge, 2900 Adeline Drive, noted he was opposed because of the danger caused to traffic on Adeline by parking construction equipment and the new driveway. If his property is damaged he wants to be reimbursed. Eleanor Zenovich, 2930 Adeline Drive, also spoke in opposition. No one spoke to her about dividing this site; she will lose view and privacy; the proposed off-street parking area for Parcel A will need high retaining walls below her lot, she should be reimbursed for any damage to her lot, her patio is already breaking up; the new lot is .35 acres, her lot is one acre, the new lot does not meet the pattern in the area. Resident and property owner, 2848 Adeline Drive, noted the street is 15 feet wide by his house, effectively one way; the Black Hawk development caused considerable trouble and the houses have not sold; water is limited, fire department had to use his pool water; city should end speculation. Jane Hall, 2910 Adeline Drive, noted that her driveway was so narrow it would allow only one way traffic, how were they to manage during construction. In response Charles Kavanagh, engineer, noted that the driveway slopes have not been detailed out, they are about 15 percent; a second driveway parallel to Mr. Hall's would take out a lot of trees and the geometry required by the City Engineer cannot be met, would result in driveways overlapping and the need to rebuild Mr. Hall's driveway, garage and retaining wall; they intend to use Parcel A for access for construction, cement trucks would be parked on Adeline and the cement pumped down onto the site; If Mr. Hall's driveway were damaged they would not patch but would replace. There was no further testimony and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: C. Jacobs moved to "recommend denial of the project to the City Council. She did not feel that Parcel A was � i � � � Burlingame Planning Commissiori Minutes August 10, 1992 compatible in size with the surrounding parcels, the development would affect Adeline sight lines which are already a problem and would make exiting the site a problem and the soils on the canyon rim are unstable. The motion was seconded by C. Graham who noted given the curves on Adeline the access to these lots is very poor, not safe. Commissioner comment on the motion: the negative declaration should be acted on first; on the negative declaration it was noted that the conditions cited exist, the negative declaration should be approved since no rare and endangered animals or plants will be affected and city services are available. C. Jacobs moved that the negative declaration be approved. C. Galligan seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a 5-0-2 roll call vote, Cers Mink and Ellis absent. Comment on the original motion to recommend denial of the tentative map to City Council: there were arguments on both sides; Halls would benefit if responsibility for repair and maintenance of the driveway were shifted to Mr. Fife; the biggest problem is the parcel size, the new 15,000 SF lot is not compatible with other lots in Burlingame, smallest existing is 21,000 SF and the balance of lots are 75,000 SF or more. Could add street frontage to Parcel A to make bigger but then have lot with no street frontage, not meet code requirements; since there is a fire access road to the rear which may some day be developed the remaining 75,000 SF lot could possibly be divided again into two. The Commission called for the question. The motion to recommend denial was approved 5-0-2 on roll call vote, Cers Ellis and Mink absent. ^ M�'� � i � 0 Comments to: ��Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 2918 Adeline Driv�e." I would first wish to point out that the Lots 2900, 2910, 2918 & 2930 are the only privately owned lots on Upper Adeline Drive that are in the City of Burlingame. P,bl the other properties on the South Side of Adeline Drive are in th� County. Because of this fact, those lots in the County, all of which are smaller than the Burlingame City Lots, should not be used to gauge the size or the quality of the lots in this higher value section of the City of Burlingame. With this in mind, the tiny lot proposed as Parcel A for this subdivision is totally out of place, when compared with all the other properties, in the immediate area. This tiny lot with a large house "cramned" onto it would reduce the �ralue of the rest of the "City" Lots on Upper Adeline Drive. I do not believe this is the intention of the Conenission. Based on the '�Application", the supporting data, and the written c�unents of the applicant and his engineer, dated April 1 1992, it does not appear that the applicant intends to build on either of the Lots. It does appear that he intends to sell the Lots and leave the City of Burlingame and the rest of us property owners of Upper Adeline Drive to suffer the .�property value loss mentioned above. The applicants refusal to accept the City 1. � i � � '� Y F�gineers requirement to install the proposed driveways as a pre-condition to the approval supports this evaluation. As further evidence of the applicant's intentions, "He" has not lived on or cared for the property for the last 6 to 8 years. Attention is drawn to the existing driveway serving 2910 Adeline Drive and providing access for 2918 Adeline Drive. Attention is also drawn to Item #4c on Page 3 of my "Objections to the Subdivision of Lot #2918 Adeline Drive.�� I have in my possession a Site Plan by Kavanagh FYigineering dated 9-10-91 showing my driveWay with a slope of 15.68% near the half way point and 17.94% near the top. The Tentative Parcel Map for this application, by Kavanagh Engineering, dated 2-26-92 and revised 8-5-92, shows a slope of 14.9% near the top of the driveway at a point almost directly across from the 17.9496 slope shown on my Site Plan drawing. I have checked this out by walking that section of my driveway and scaling the drawing, and have come to the conclusion that a relatively flat section of driveway, at the top (about 5 feet) must have been used in their calculations. If this 5 feet is deducted from the 40 feet scaled from the Parcel Map and the elevation is reduced from 357.35 to 357.00, the true slope for this section of the driveway becomes 16.0%, which ties in with the 17.94°6 shown on my Site Plan map. If the slopes are calculated for the rest„af the driveway using only the elevations along the North side of the driveway, there 2. - ^ I � / 1 . 1 • is only one that is less than 15%, except at the bottan of the driveway. Therefore, the assumption that the existing driveway - meets the code requirement of 15% maximiun is not true. I, as the owner of the existing driveFray, can not agree to its use by the heavy equipment that would b� required to tear down the existing house on Lot 2918 Ade�ine Drive, and to rebuild and extend this driveway to the proposed house on Parcel B, and to build a new house on Parcel B. The proposed location of the house on Parcel A would indicate that the preparation of this foundation of the house would also require heavy equipment use of my driveway. The driveway was not built for this type of excessive use or the excessive use over the 12 to 24 months needed to build the two houses. My driveway and retaining wall were damaged, as was the driveway into my home, (which was new in 1976), by the 1989 earthquake. No one can be sure how much unseen damage the earthquake did to my driveways foundation nor what the additional heavy construction traffic could cause to the foundation of my hame. I]mow the applicant has said that he will repair any superficial damage done by the construction and associated work. This is not acceptable, because, once broken, no amount of patching can restore it to its original condition of integrity. The implied heavy use of my driveway goes far beyond the intent of the 3. , , � ,. , ' easement. I also have a great concern regarding the restriction of my access to and from my home due to the heavy use of my driveway for the proposed construction period. If there were an emergency, we could be trapped. I am sure I will be told, ��It would not happen", but, as far as I am concerned, it is inevitable that it would happen. As an alternative to the use of my driveway for all of the above destruction and construction, I have proposed to exchange a portion of my lot between the existing driveway and Adeline Drive for a portion of Lot 2918 land on the common boundary of our two lots. This would allow the applicant to build a new and exclusive driveway for Parcel B. This would also eliminate his easement on my driveway. It would also allow him to move whatever equipment he wishes in and out, provided he does not damage my property in doing it. We Upper Adeline Neighbors have already experienced considerable traffic problems with the reconstruction of the house at 2909 Adeline Drive. In conclusion, I believe the most satisfactory solution would be for the Applicant to build his own driveway, as suggested above. �'J'� /��-�' B �o- 92 G�� � � .�.,� , ,. . � . � , . August 7, 1992 2930 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA.,.94010 Margaret Monroe City Planner City of Burlingame I live at 2930 Adelilne Drive, above the Fife resi- dence at 2918 Adeline (sub-division lot). After reviewing the recent map, I am most concerned regarding Parcel "A", specifcallly, the garage back-up area, which requires cutting into my hill and building retaining walls 6' to 10' in height. My lot has been built on fill. This proposed small lot is only 7 feet to my property line. The above _cutting into my steep hill will disturb the fill. At present, I have a patio directly above the proposed digging which is cracked in several places due to slippage. I have included photos of the patio. Therefore, I am concerned for my house foundation and adjacent driveway. A1so, certainly my view will be lost due to 10' walls and construction of a house on Lot A. I live on a lot w}uch measures wer one acre. I object to the extremely small lot of .35 acre next to my home. This lot does not meet the pattern of existing lots in our neighborhood. Construction of a house on Lot A will undoubtedly devaluate my property. Yours truly, Eleanor Zenovich � .� r , u ► " Members of Burlingame Planning Coartnission August 8, 1992 Dear Sirs: I am writing to you regarding the subdivision of Lot 2918 Adeline Driv�e and a health problem this may cause my wife Jane A. Hall. My wife has a very serious allergy problem with dusts, pollens, and other environmental airborn allergens. If this subdivision is appraved we will be exposed to 12 to 24 months of excessive amounts'of these allergens. As an example of just how serious this can be, my wife had to be hospitalized for three days in Mills Hospital just after C`hristmas last year. We live at 2910 Adeline Drive and share a caranon driveway with 2918 Adeline Drive. The driveway runs within 35 feet of the two entrances to our home. We have our home equipped with an electronic filtration system and air conditioning. In addition to this the house�thoroughly vacuumed and hand dusted once every week. Our home is located near the top of the hill and exposed to considerable wind almost every day. u , + F, � The great increase in construction dust and the constant movement of trucics on our driveway will muitiply our problems. - We request you disapprov�e this subdivision. Sincerely, ��G%/�� - i' / �• <�%����C', � --��c. �C �- � `��;c,�� John M. and Jane A. Hall 2910 Adeline Drive Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Encl.Letter from E.James Young, M.D. of 8-6-92. � � � � . � �, � • . . , �' � E. JsasEs YoUNC�, M. D., Ixc. 127 NORTM SAN MATEO DRIVE DIPtqMATE /JICNIGM �MRO OF AILEqG� Nlp IMNUNOLOGT SAN MATEO, GLIFORNIA 94401 PqACTICE LIMREO TO ALLERGiC Oi5EA5E5 (416) 348-6958 August G, 1992 TO WHOM �T MAY CpP�CER��: �1rs. Jane 11a11 has been under n,y care si.nce 1976 for allerc�ies involving multiple organ systems. Slie is sensitiye to dusts, pollens and other environnental air6orn allerqens, It is quite certain that activities that would raise tlie concentration of these air contaminants would increase the severity of her allergic responses and subsequently her general health could be impaired. It wou18 r�ake it more difficult to treat her allergic oroblens. If further information is necessary, please do not hesitate to contact me. % n . ames oung, < < EJY/mg � a . <�> �� .. , w , � City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010 (415) 31+2-8931 �� GUREVITZ HOWARD & AMELIA A � ��� A.P.N 2896 ADELINE DR � � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 , NOTICE OF HEARING : 027-111-090 The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on Monday, the lOth day of August 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 2918 ADELINE DRIVE - APN: 027-111-OSO APPLICATION FOR A LOT SPLIT TENTATIVE MAP AT 2918 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-l. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE , CITY PLANNER I�, v�' � July 31, 1992 ��`�'�'Fd � �' l��t����- /'� VQ 0�� � � 9�� � �� �� ,�. ,� �/ u��z�� �'z-l�c; �i . . . h� � , � , , , / � . ,, / / � � � �l �, l �� +�� �/ � � i � � � i ., � � , � , �.� � � i � � � � � � ,i � � , � �► � , ,,�, , � �, :�� � �,�,(� � r ,, � � � �, , , � , , � :Tr � i i � � 1�� f � �