HomeMy WebLinkAbout2918 Adeline Drive - Staff Report (3)MID PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC
Statement of Qualifications
San Juan Unified School District — Multiple School Campuses
Mid Pacific Engineering provides a full
scope of geotechnical engineering,
construction materials testing, special
inspections and laboratory testing for the
San Juan Unified School District, including
special DSA Legacy and cell tower
improvement projects. Our work scope
includes but is not limited to: compaction
testing of soils and aggregates, concrete "`�.-"�`�.'`�,�"�-'�'` �p �� ��t ...'' X
field testing (including slump, air content, �� j�''�` '*,.�, �,.��"'-���
temperature and casting of concrete "` �~ 4� ��� � -�
�, f..
cylinders), masonry inspections for block, mortar and grout, steel reinforcement placement,
compression testing of concrete, mortar and grout, anchor bolt torque and pull testing,
tensile and bend testing of steel reinforcement, and field and shop welding inspections.
These projects under the jurisdiction of
the Division of State Architect (DSA)
range from new construction to
modernizations and campus renovations.
Our work is closely coordinated with the
project Inspector of Record (IOR) to
provide timely response to the various
testing and inspection needs as well as
timely distribution and uploading of test
reports and daily field reports through
the DSA Box.
Bella Vista High School STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Building
Work is underway on Bella
Vista's new next-generation science
wing which will include i� classrooms
and labs along with a unique 5,000-
square-foot "flex space". This District
Signature Project is utilizing two
existing shop buildings and
transforming them into state-of-the-
art classrooms to compliment one of
the region's top high school science programs. Mid Pacific Engineering provided the
Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Hazards Report for the Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) project and is providing full scope of materials testing
and special inspections.
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 Chairman Kelly 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
�I 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - LANDS OF FIFE,
�- SUBDIVISION OF 2918 ADELINE DRIVE, DEED VOL. 6909 O.R. 94-95,
i 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.
i
e
� ��'f �.
s
P.C. 3/23/92
Item # 1
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - CITY ENGINEER
DATE: MARCH 17, 1992
SUBJECT: STUDY REVIEW OF PROPOSED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION - LANDS OF FIFE; DEED VOL. 6909 O.R.
94-95; APN 027-111-050, 2918 ADELINE DRIVE
This application is to divide a 90,784 S.F. (2.09 AC) lot into two
parcels, one 15,217 S.F. (0.349 AC) and the second 75,567 S.F. (1.735
AC). The existing house is to be removed.
The Subdivision Code, Section 26.24.050 provides four (4) review
criteria that ne�d 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 or 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 r.eighborhood. 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 caith a creek (CS 26.08.075) are
met.
The Fire Department, Building Department and Planning have reviewed
the proposal. The Fire Department asks for a construction condition
for the roof, automatic fire sprinkler system if structures are over
5,000 S.F., and either on-site fire hydrants and a 20-foot wide
,
Page 2
access road to Fire Department standards or automatic fire sprinkler
system installed as an alternative. The Building Department indi-
cated that the existing structure needs to be removed prior to the
lot split (house is on proposed property line). The Planning
Department indicates that the parcel split meets their minimum lot
size and width criteria. They also indicated that various easements
are required; lot dimensions are needed; the compatibility of lot
size to those in the neighborhood is required; and hillside area
construction permits will be needed on any structures.
Engineering staff has reviewed this request. Possible development
concerns to be covered in further submittals from the applicant and
possible questions on this parcel map are:
1. Parcel A is 15,217 S.F. (.35 AC). It is smaller in size than
most lots on�the Burlingame side of Adeline Drive. Does this lot
and the remnant, Lot B- 75,600 S.F. (1.74 AC), meet the pattern
of existing lots in the "neighborhood?"
2. The average slope of the existing lot is about 330. Can the new
lots be reasonably developed both with homes and access?
3. Does the development cause any concerns about the grading and
changes in contours? Below are a number of developmental
questions and concerns. Any hillside development will need some
grading and filling. In this case, the exact limits are not
shown but implied as above-grade structures or retaining walls
supporting cut slopes or filled areas. Designs at this point are
conceptual only.
4. Review if parcel development.
Parcel A:
a. Driveway access is at maximum code slope from a new entrance
which crosses Lot B. Similar situation exists with the
existing home.
b. Access as shown is elevated from 6' to 13' above grade. It
could be installed with retaining walls 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 Drive. Retaining walls and fills
are required for the driveway access down or possibly a raised
structure as shown.
d. Should the subdivider be required to install the required
driveway access and retaining structures for the garage pad?
Staff will be suggesting installing the paved access to the
building pad as a minimum to insure that no variance requests
are received.
0
Page 3
e. Possible house area shown at 1800 S.F. per floor.' It could be
a second story if a hillside area construction permit is
required.
f. Is there excessive grading on this site? Existing house pad
is used mostly for the new house. The garage and parking area
requires the cutting into the slope as indicated above.
Parcel B:
a. Parcel B is 75,567 S.F. (1.735 AC) and is similar in size to
other lots on the Burlingame side of Adeline Drive.
b. Parcel B is not a flag lot since its frontage meets City code
requirements.
c. Driveway to Parcel B is shared with 2910 Adeline as is now
shared with house at 2918 Adeline.
d. A portion of the driveway is new and extends further down
slope to a level parking pad fronting a new house. Retaining
walls up to 10' are required to develop the parking pad.
e. A possible house has first floor below garage grade to keep to
maximum building height allowed to 30'. Other designs are
possible.
f. Should the subdivider be required to install the required
driveway access and retaining structures for the garage pad?
Staff will be suggesting installing the paved access as a
minimum. Since the parking pad requires either retaining
structures to 10' or a raised platform, should some portion be
installed by the subdivider or should an alternate design or
lot configuration and access be considered?
g. Is there excessive grading on this site? Most of the proposed
house and garage siting requires either fill and retaining
walls or raised structures to 10' in height. A little cutting
appears to be required for the new portion of the driveway.
In addition to the above, the following information is needed or
should be considered at the Final Map stage:
a. The front lot width at the street needs to be shocan for both
lots.
b. Set back at Parcel B garage shown at about 10'. If actually
built, Planning would require 15' at that location.
c. Show Mills Creek at the rear of the property.
Page 4
d. Stopping sight distances for 25 miles per hour need to be
confirmed by applicant's engineer at each driveway for exiting
vehicles and approaching vehicles to see each other.
e. Covenants for drainage easements and drainage system designs
are needed for Parcel A to drain over Parcel B.
f. Covenants for placing access easements across Lot B need to be
on the final map. Slope easements for fills and cuts may be
needed also.
g. Covenants and maintenance agreements together with improvement
plans for joint building sewer use are needed for final map.
h. A subdivider agreement together with on-site developmental
plans for_.all work that is required as a condition of the
Final Map.
As these items and any Commission questions are discussed with the
applicant and his engineer, there may be other questions, concerns
and conditions.
����x�='��
����
Frank C. Erbacher
djm
cc: Applicant
Engineer
STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
I. Project Address: 2918 Adeline
II. Project Description 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 Pl�n Designation: Low Density Residential
IV. Existing Site Conditions and Ad�acent 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.
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. ND 452-E
The City of Burlingame, by Frank C. Erbacher, City Enqineer 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 tha�
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
c
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 Mj.11s Creek at the northern end of the site.
�.�e C�z.�� a.� �axx.�a���n�r.e
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010
I. Backqround
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(415) 342-H625
1. Name of Proponent Jim and Diane Fife
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2918 Adel i ne . Burl i n�ame,
CA 94010 (Tel.) 415-348-2556
3. Date Checklist Submitted 3/17/92
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Burl inqame
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Tentati ve Parcel Map: Lands nf
Fi fe
II. Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all "YES" and "MAYBE" answers are required on
attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes
in geologic substructures?
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 :aater 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 oc�an or any bay, inlet or lake? _
,
0
X
�
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?
YES MAYBE NO
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?
�
0
�
�
�
Y
y
�
�
�'
:�
�
/
�
.
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Enerqy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
YES MAYBE NO
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. Poy�er of natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste disposal?
17. Human Health. Will 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 archaeological site?
�
X
�
�
�
-,�
�
�
-�
r
:
�
,�
�
�
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT
have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project
could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on the attached sheet(s)
have added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. �_
I find the proposed project MAY have a
significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date
Signature
For
�
�� ���,. � A . "� i �4�{�,_�/, -� � . .j _ . —C .
j "f . ,},ab . : J �L x !�- ' _
��! '�,4 �' : � . �( . ,f �� ` t it . � Ps� �, - _ :. � �,.
i�'. . . :'. . � �ti .31 '�- �+..���
�^ �"` , a �` �-^
_ :� �� , � �x-�� � `�� � -_
, � _ � f � �,, � -� '� � �
.�,;�,� � �- _�` �,-�` � ���'� � � �;
, -�,_ "' �#
: - � � � � ��. � � �
�;: `.. ' -, � .-- �� , � - _ __
� - �• ��. , . _ _
� #�
�� :, �. : - = ,
'u _ •i�, . _
= - � �:. ���. � - ,�.� ��
- - '� � � -� ,� I _ ��
�
.as' X,� ��F� ' . _ _ ..�� . � `� 9�. �. .�
.'��� g-� - } . � -„ � � � . _ 'b .x�, � � � - � '
� � tr" _ � :. .•� '� � ..-� � 'k ��
, " 'M - t � � ,^a*. � 1 �t'„= � _ . b, _ +*r.y�.
� �'T�,.i :j. :y.. . a'. , . tS-. "rx �'
�,
. �• � •-� ' . _ -�"�` �'"� � ` 4.
� ' ,ea � � - . -. .., g 4L � • - ,-. �� � a =+ .
;�' , u� ��: � � � .r�'� w ,• "�1 � -a `� . - - .-_ �y�.�;s����.=.� �" __ �*,_
. - �, � � - � ��� �. �T'
. � g °" A' .� s- _y
s�;' $ x � � a � .� ;p a
- � - • �` � �.� �
�`� ; _ _ � ^ e.,�, ' . - - - � �'� � _
� �
.. .r% �-� .- � ; � � • .- . -.. ,- _ � ��.�.�.� � M �+s
- : f"-_ . - :.. � _ � � '-- � �.� �,'�g
, - r�,_ �-� . . -a`�- - . . �" s�1-. � � �"�'�` -- �-
i` _�,,_._- : • _ y`� s�. � �_ '�.
} ,� :� • ' - i �,� � .�';� ��ty� �
� _ -�..- _ .?� . " ly _ - � � �'v.� : -� $'�' ' '�S
ys � .::� 4
_. 3 h� _
. . 4�+ �.{-: . . _ � K� y ��` �� , ��� . "
. _ t '--2� ��.t '. . _.
3 _ � � . _ .� " � �� . .
. C "z�� �a.,� •� .,. � � _ . � �� �. � �
.. _ � --�� .`�� _ " .� �' �. .� • `4 '� �'3e
.- .�z. i �_� �3
r� � ; � �
4` �¢ t '
' � �� .ic -# - _.2qi� ��4 ��-'.�.� :.�..
,� i' - _ `'� ='-
` � �,`T �_' .� . ,. . �1\ �_;; �,
'.,�:. 'z`�,..� . � R _ _V 4� . ` �, �%� ..
, � 1,0``" �\�J �i � *"� � 4
., � u r< r . :. .
� � + 293p : �i � 1,q13 � `� ,����� .�
,�,� � �`,� � �. ` `� q�'k ' ` -' ��' -- ,�'�` _ ' '
{
,��� A� �.933 -_ � ,: , _ 'Y ' '��� � -� � �
L`'�� � -_ -• �9Zq � -� �.z925' �,. � � �:�# �` � s -��._
I '� �, � ��-� � � � ' � � ��—��� �:° � �. �-< �
�? -� � - � �
� } r �..—'f �.''� � � � t � ^.� t . � � � � , ` _ �' � �, �� � �;�'� � �
j � s����`'. .�"'�,-+..� �� � �' ��
, -�t. �` i �a a;,gss, � 'i' .
'- i g � �_ -�
� L �� ,�-`'�� � . ,� �
�;� -t_;�� � =,� _"�
•�� >�� ��.a�� . �� D:.
� �
�r � � _� r �� Y�
.-S 'Y • � _ �x
'i�` � ea: .�,�.�_ �
� �.�;, a= s��"�r - � �
' l �� ;, � �=,
4 � �T tLl S � p � ¢�
, b -. _ � �.
� � ;� �
�_ � `� -
�1 � � "� ��
- � � ' x .. �� � ,_ . r
iM a �
�' �� �
� L
. � � ' 4yi ��� -
.� �" y{ .
'� { . ,� y 3 b� =.
�'f ... _ ,.'?4 �-i;
� � - s. `� - r��...
¢'�?�.� � � "'� _ 's -
' d �� 4, _
�, ._�-7.. - -� . �+
� �` � x
� �:
F���.$- �$ ,�
z 3
�. �. � .r ��
���
Y� �
>
..isz�'.� - .
��a� �R��� `
� -� ''y t� �.
_ �` . • -.Er ti '�` �. � < . � �,'Y
w.�.. .... .._. __,�-,��
v '\\ - ��'
_ ` `\ �o \' .. , �` ,, y ` ` _ ��
. i��'QO C t�.t��, .� �
�v+ " 5f � �'>
' � \� \� � ��� 'A�i2 .7.1� �1
\ �',� h'$" } � o
�`\\ \\\ '✓ ''e
� F�� � 3.
�\\ �\
O \\\ �� �— � —�� ��� �€�
��\` ��� F �
� � uuas
���. cr�i*0�E
\ � � s. tit
O � \� 'S j`a�
a � \ �
3� � � �� f
o W O f�l O \- \ :.
* ^� .� � � � \ J`�.
'� O ." Q • �
eo��e'�. 1`i(LL� V7fY yQl� !� ��ti \\��\ y�N
l���� •., /� \���� ��
� -� � 0 � ���'�,
�S� � • �� ��
o�
�w 1�sU � `
. � � ,
,,,� �, � , L9%G ���'9 �. �
5 � 'N55' Lp•r � 1 /7
� t!
���>/_ .g25 �/)g_���2. , � � S` \ffJ� ` � \yo •
� ' \ > � ti� y� �` �
,ti u�ose — y�+� � . \�`�'3� �,� ,� �� •
) � R�s n. �z� �'"'' '� 'r ;' nir saa, ��� � � 1 �GC% q �,�,
�� rc�- a s n m F,
�y�� V�� ,So e � 3a`7� yTO� � !i7' 2`'}�� �SY� � i� /�
�.;�'.���'. W° _� _. /;l���sf � � R'rs� `' ,.... �� . � _ l�l
T�
, 9
�
�
�
�\ ��
� �
\� �
�_
N
�
W Of
�`7� L G' /!J
o�
O
N ��
,y+•�oti \,y( b1,
��S` n� s�i
1
B X.;
� .�, R55
J�, ��� I010
y * O
te .
�
C