HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 Vista Lane - Staff Report (3)Item No. 1 b
City of Burlingame Study Item
Variance for Lot Frontage
Address: 12 Vista Lane Meeting Date: 9/28/09
Request: Application for Variance for lot frontage for creation of two lots each with 55 feet of lot frontage where
60 feet of lot frontage is required (CS 25.28.050, (a) (3) and (h).
Applicant and Property Owner: Denham LLC APN: 027-093-300
Land Surveyor: MacLeod and Associates Lot Area: 21,212 SF (current)
General Flan: Low Density Residential Parcel 1 — 10,537 SF (proposed)
Zoning: R-1 Parcel 2 — 10,675 SF (proposed)
History: On March 12, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed this application and provided comments (see
attached March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant provided responses to the
Commission's comments in a letter dated March 14, 2007 (attached); however the applicant deferred the
application for several months and on September 24, 2007, the applicant withdrew the application from the
planning review process prior to being scheduled for an action meeting. The applicant is now resubmitting the
same application for Planning Commission review. Because more than two years have passed since the initial
application was submitted, the application is being brought back as a study item. Please refer to the "Study
Meeting" section on page 2 for responses to the Commissions' earlier comments.
Summary: The subject lot was part of a larger lot which extended from Vista Lane to Adeline Drive and had 110
feet of street frontage on each street. The property was in the jurisdiction of San Mateo County until 1979, when
it was annexed to the City of Burlingame. In August 2005, the original lot which extended from Vista Lane to
Adeline Drive, was subdivided into two lots: one lot having frontage on Adeline Drive (110 feet street frontage)
and the other lot on Vista Lane (110 feet street frontage). This subdivision was approved by City Council on
August 1, 2005. Recently, an application for construction of a new single family dwelling was approved on the
Adeline Drive lot. The applicant is now proposing to subdivide the upper portion of the lot (with frontage on Vista
Lane) into two lots (refer to the staff report for the tentative and final parcel map prepared by Public Works,
Engineering Division).
The existing lot located in the City of Burlingame measures 21,212 SF in area and is surrounded on three sides
by properties located in San Mateo County (unincorporated land). Based on an average of the property corners,
the existing lot slopes downward approximately 34.92 feet from front to rear (18% slope). At the front of the
property, the lot has a cross -slope of approximately 8 feet. There are no improvements on the lot other than an
existing water tank. When future development is proposed, the top of the water tank would be demolished and
the portion of the tank below grade would be filled with soil.
The Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map, date stamped August 10, 2009, shows how the existing lot would be
subdivided into two lots. The existing 110 foot wide lot would be divided in half to create two 55 foot wide lots,
Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 would have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,537 SF in area.
Parcel 2 would also have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,675 SF in area. There is a minor
difference in lot sizes because the property line along Vista Lane is slightly curved.
Code Section 25.28.050 (h) requires that all lands annexed after May 31, 1960, and classified for residential
uses shall have a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF (10,537 SF and 10,675 SF proposed for Parcels 1 and 2,
respectively). In addition, Code Section 25.28.050 (a) (3) requires that lots of 10,000 SF or more shall have an
average width of not less than 50 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot) and shall have frontage of not less than 60
feet (55 feet proposed for each lot). Since each lot is proposed to have less than 60 feet of street frontage, a
Variance for lot frontage is required. Code Section 25.28.050 (e) notes that Variances may be granted, in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 25.54 (variance findings). The following application is required:
• Variance for lot frontage at 12 Vista Lane, Parcels 1 and 2 (55 feet lot frontage proposed for Parcel 1 and
Parcel 2 where 60 feet lot frontage is the minimum required) (CS 25.28,050, (a) (3) and (h).
Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane
The Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map shows possible footprints on each proposed new lot. As shown, the
footprints would be in compliance with setbacks, lot coverage and driveway slope. Planning staff would note that
the possible footprints shown are for the purpose of evaluating whether or not the proposed new lots can be
developed. Approval of the Variance for lot frontage does not approve the possible footprints shown. Any future
development on these lots would require submittal of an application for Design Review. Staff would note that
there is an existing protected tree in the middle of Parcel 1. The possible footprint shows that the house would
be designed around the protected tree. An arborist's report would be required at the time future development on
this lot is proposed. New 4-inch sewer laterals and 6-inch storm drain lines would be brought in from the lot to
the rear of the site by way of private sanitary sewer and storm drain easements across the rear of Parcel 2 and
an existing easement on the property to the rear.
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the City Engineer and City Arborist. The Chief Building Official,
Fire Marshal and NPDES Coordinator had no comments at this time.
Study Meeting (March 12, 2007): At the Planning Commission study meeting on March 12, 2007, the
Commission had several comments regarding this project (March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes). The
applicant submitted a response letter dated March 14, 2007 and is attached for your review. Below are
comments which required responses from staff:
1. Request that staff provide conditions of approval and any other information regarding approval
of the previous subdivision which split the original lot into two lots.
• Attached is the approval letter for the previous subdivision (letter dated August 23, 2005), the staff
report to City Council with conditions of approval, memorandum from the Engineering Division (dated
June 30, 2005) and the August 1, 2005 City Council Minutes and July 11, 2005 Planning
Commission Minutes regarding the previous subdivision.
2. Can adjacent property owners located in San Mateo County object to view blockage when
applications for new houses are submitted in the future.
Any person from the public may comment on future applications for new houses at this site, and
notices will be sent to all properties within 300 feet of the subject property, regardless of jurisdiction.
With regard to view blockage, Code Section 25.61.060 notes that review of the Hillside Area
Construction Permit "shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant
views of nearby properties" and that "emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from
habitable areas within a dwelling unit."
3. Request that staff explain why there is a requirement for a minimum 60' lot frontage.
In the years leading up to 1988, City Council members expressed concerns about the subdivision of
existing large lots into two or more smaller lots which were then redeveloped with structures not in
keeping with the pattern and character of the existing development in the area. At that time, the
larger lot areas were subject to the same physical development standards established for the typical
5,000 SF minimum lot. The minimum required street frontage for all lots, regardless of their size,
was 50'-0" and the maximum side setback requirement was 5'-0" (for all lots 51'-0" or more in width).
The development standards for a 5,000 SF lot when applied to larger lots allowed smaller setbacks
than were originally used, often causing new homes to crowd in on existing structures.
(continued on next page)
2
Variance for Lot Frontage
12 Vista Lane
An amendment to the zoning code was proposed at that time due to the increasing amount of
development and remodeling occurring in the 1980's in older, larger lot areas, it was determined to
be appropriate to clarify the physical development standards for the larger lot areas in the city. The
most direct approach to providing better guidance to the developer, when considering construction in
the large lot areas of the city, was to adjust the length of the street frontage and side setback
requirements. As a result, the zoning code was amended to establish new minimum street frontages
for larger lots (55'-0" minimum street frontage for 7,000 SF to 9,999 SF lots and 60'-0" minimum
street frontage for 10,000 SF + lots). In addition, the minimum side setback requirements for wider
lots were established (6'-0" for lots 54' to 61' wide and 7'-0" for lots greater than 61' wide). Together
these measures would encourage and maintain the spaciousness for development in the larger lot
areas without deterring development or remodeling.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Denham LLC, applicant and property owner
Attachments:
March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant's Response to Commission's Comments, letter dated March 14, 2007
Correspondence Submitted after the March 12, 2007 Study Meeting
Application to the Planning Commission
Variance Form
Rendering Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped August 10, 2009
Staff Comments
Aerial Photo
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
March 12, 2007
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 12 VISTA LANE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCE
FOR LOT FRONTAGE (DENHAM LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MACLEOD AND
ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ENGINEER)
a. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL A, BLOCK 4,
BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 12 VISTA LANE - PM 06-07 — PROJECT
ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG
b. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE FOR CREATION OF TWO LOTS
WITH 55-FOOT WIDE STREET FRONTAGE WHERE 60 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE IS
REQUIRED — PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Chair Brownrigg noted that he expressed an interest in
this property several years ago and spoke to the applicant about it at that time, but has not discussed the site
in any detail with the applicant since then. C. Vistica arrived at 7:15 p.m.
Commissioners asked:
■ Request that staff provide conditions of approval and any other information regarding approval of the
previous subdivision which split the original lot into two lots;
■ Would like applicant to consider a reduction in the maximum allowed floor area ratio on these two
lots since a variance is being requested for substandard lot frontage;
■ Would like applicant to address the maximum building height allowed since the lot has a significant
downward slope, this will be a very tall building at the rear if height is measured from average top of
curb level, should consider limiting the building height based on the existing contour of the lot;
■ Applicant is requesting approval for a subdivision without any mitigations, applicant should address
how the two lots will function together, regarding drainage, access, etc.;
■ Can adjacent property owners located in San Mateo County object to view blockage when
applications for new houses are submitted in the future;
■ Request that staff explain why there is a required for a minimum 60' lot frontage;
■ How will lower lot off Adeline Drive be accessed; how would this proposed subdivision affect
access to the lower lot; and
■ Would like to see what the treatment will be between the buildings and the street; how will the lot
frontage be developed; applicant should explain the building envelope massing for each of the lots
and how that will relate to the area between the building and the street.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m.
2
The City of Burlingame
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD CORPORATION YARD
(415) 6.9677230 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 (415) 696-7260
Augu42392005 .
Denham LLC
85 tBurlway Road #610
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Tentative and Final Parcel Map at 2843 Adeline Drive/12 Vista Lane, PM 04-04
Dear Sir:
The subject Tentative and Final Parcel Map was approved by the Burlingame City Council at their M of
of Au 1, 2005.
..In accordance with City Code, the Final Map must be filed within two (2) years of this approval date unless
an extension is granted
Sincerely,
CITY OF BURLINGAME
George Bagdon
Director of Public Works
Victor
P.E.
�GITY
,m
�9o04A
Agenda.
Item #
Meeting
STAFF REPORT Date: _8/01105
SUBMITTED BY.01
�\
APPROVED BY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: JULY 21, 2005
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE AND.FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL (APN
027-093-110) INTO PARCEL A AND PARCEL B, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME
HILLS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 2843 ADELINE DRIVE/12 VISTA LANE - PM 04-
04
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning
.Commission and approve the subject lot split as a Tentative and. Final Parcel Map with the
following conditions:
1. Developmental approvals are not part of this mapping action.
maintenance responsibilities for the proposed private storm drain and sanitary
sewer easements as well as associated pipelines shall be noted in the.final map.
3. All property corners shall be set in the field and shown on the map
BACKGROUND: At their meeting of July 11, 20.05, the Planning Commission reviewed the
attached tentative parcel map and recommended Council approval with the conditions
listed above: The parcel map should be considered as both the tentative and final parcel
,nap to facilitate processing. Staff will ensure that the proper map is recorded. -
EXHIBITS: Tentative Parcel Map; Staff Memorandum; July 11, 2005 Planning Commission
Minutes
City Clerk, Applicant
)ougla ell
>enior Civil Engineer
:W Public Works Directory%Statf Reports104-04.doc
P.C. ol-11^os M-reih'ld ITEM # '1
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JUNE 30, 2005
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A
LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL (APN 027-093-110) INTO PARCEL A AND
PARCEL B, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO.2 SUBDIVISION,
2843 ADELINE DRIVE/12 VISTA LANE - PM 04-04
Site Information:
Zoning:
Existing Lot Size:
Proposed Lot Size:
Required Lot Size:
Required Street Frontage:
Background:
R-1
43,251 + Square Feet
Parcel A = 22,315 + Square Feet
Street Frontage = 50 Feet
Parcel B = 20,936 + Square Feet
Street Frontage = 50 Feet
10,000 Square Feet
50 Linear Feet
This parcel map application proposes to subdivide one lot into two lots. All proposed parcels will
meet the required fifty foot (50') street frontage (C.S. 25.28.050a-1).
The Engineering Department has reviewed the map for utilities and easements and has the
following comments:
1. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action.
2. The maintenance responsibilities for the proposed private storm drain and sanitary sewer
easements and associated pipelines shall be noted in the final map.
3. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map.
This mapping action should be considered as a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for the lot split to
speed processing. Staff will see that the Final Map is properly prepared.
Page 1 of 2
The Planning Department will require environmental review when applications for the single
family dwellings for the lots are submitted. The Fire Department requires that all structures shall
be constructed within 150 feet from the street. This application is a Categorical Exemption
Section 15315, "Minor Land Division" under C.E.Q.A.
Attachments: Assessor's Map, Drainage Map, Tentative Map
s:\apublicworks\planning\03-IO.mmo
Page 2 of 2
_ 'I'•29O y�C T:?
/4 /3 091 /2 m Lj N N
R'rn.oT
A4
.25
'ram U51'4TW PI I = 8 �I I
T o ��• ffi
i5 �� y, ��_ d � 3
$7.43 . C
R�115 54 , 41,G4' 53.G2' 2G.19' '7219' A9.81' 20' 3Q22' 50.16' 91.43' 6o.AT ATA0' 06.03'
\ �m 005.. 4O.G5' 3G QS95GE R.•/75' .
\ �o R:275 7 R•1?s sg9?4�?Jic. '.13 5a422E R:125 5G3'3A'E, DR.
9A, 9725'
24.39' RCDU�
\off 15 0 p 3.6i' O/ .77:., 92.,w 13' 75 N P.M. S 40 75 10
34.4?.. :125 Q /.. N
mh tx1 �8 ai �2 O �..✓O
PARCEL o N o
/d W 14 �Q m x- A 5 s
o 9 /3 $ N 7 ss4
l6 9 " SSG33'E N
m r
6 &3: 3AH 7d.49'
i. 2 3 79.10'
o'
too 093 SB'OS'37-W7? ' 8 t PARCEL 79`?c¢so.'
B ��� ,Ig,yB' .•512.5A
pov Q\o l3
f1.
'12 L Q/
zu)
y /�t
17
/8 era•.. m 059'
a3 VI S7,4 . 3 R•5o ' S9'
So, CAN
ti3p4 , /
3es> ah, l8 �
73
ti
30,
d. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR VACANCIES IN OFFICE
OF CITY COUNCILMEMBER OR CITY CLERK
CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council consider adoption of a procedure to be used if
Council wishes to consider appointment to a vacancy in the office of City Councilmember or City Clerk.
After Council discussion, Council requested that this item be continued to the September 6, 2005 Council
meeting.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF
PORTIONS OF LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 10 BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION, 215
CHAPIN LANE
DPW Bagdon requested Council to concur with the Planning Commission and approve the Tentative and
Final Parcel Map with conditions.
b. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL INTO PARCEL
A AND PARCEL B, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS, NO.2 SUBDIVISION, 2843
ADELINE DRIVE/12 VISTA LANE — PM 04-04
DPW Bagdon requested Council to concur with the Planning Commission and approve the Tentative and
Final Parcel Map with conditions.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 56-2005 APPROVING A CONTRACT TO EXTEND THE
OCCUPANCY AT 1369 NORTH CAROLAN FOR NINETY DAYS
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 56-2005 to extend the occupancy at 1369 North
Carolan Avenue by 90 days with additional conditions.
d. RESOLUTION NO.57-2005 APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. FOR FY 2005-06 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OF
WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL Il"ROVEMENTS PROGRAM
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 57-2005 approving a Professional Services
Program Management Agreement with Erler & Kalinowski, Inc.
e. RESOLUTION NO.58-2005 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AND RESTATEMENT OF
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE PENINSULA CONGESTION
RELIEF ALLIANCE
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 58-2005 approving first amendment and
restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance.
Burlingame City Council August 1, 2005
Approved Minutes
f. APPROVAL FOR ATTENDANCE AT OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve the attendance of the Chief Building Official at a conference in
Detroit, Michigan for the International Code Conference annual business meeting and code adoption final
hearings.
g. APPROVAL OF ANNUAL SIDEWALK SALE FOR DBID, AUGUST 19 AND 20, 2005
EA Shinday requested Council approve the Annual Sidewalk Sale for the Downtown Business Improvement
District on August 19 and 20, 2005.
h. INTER -FUND LOAN FOR WWTP ELECTRICAL COGENERATION PROJECT
FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 59-2005 approving a $1.1 million loan from the
City's General Fund to the Sewer Fund to finance a capital improvement project to purchase and install an
electrical cogeneration engine at the wastewater treatment plant.
i. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL
FinDir Nava requested Council approve payment of Warrants #12051-13081 duly audited, in the amount of
$4,570,689.36 (excluding Library checks 12134-12153 and 12742-12774), Payroll checks #162449-162715
in the amount of $2,422,364.50 for the month of June 2005.
—� Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor
Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0.
10.
Council rep ed on various events and mmittee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City.
11. D BUSINESS
ouncilwoman O'Mahon expressed her thankXstaff
offey for his service t e City of
Burlingame and to the omrnunity.
Councilwoman Mahony thanked CA Andersyote Aware ss brochure.
12.
no new business.
3.
a. Commission Minu s: Library, May 24 and Ju/21,; Traffic, Safety and P ing, June 9, 2005;
Planning, July 1 and July 25, 2005
b. Departme eports: Building, June 2005; Fin2005
c. Lette om Comcast concerning progra ing changes /
4 yy
Burlingame City Council August 1, 2005
Approved Minutes
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
July 11, 2005
9. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP
FOR LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL (APN: 027-093-110) INTO PARCEL A AND PARCEL B, BLOCK 4,
BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 12 VISTA LANE, PM 04-04 (42 NOTICED) PROJECT
ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG
C. Brownrigg noted he would abstain for personal reasons. He left the chambers.
Reference staff report July 11, 2005, with attachments. Asst. Dir. PW/CE Murtuza presented the report
noting that this request is for a lot split. Commissioner commented: generally have a problem with lot splits
because maintaining the diversity of lot size is important to the fabric of Burlingame, but each of these lots
has street frontage, is very large, and will continue to contribute to the diversity of the city. Should be clear
that approval of a lot split does not guarantee future approval of a variance. CE noted that future
development of these lots could require substantial grading, so there are other issues as well. CA noted that
there is no entitlement to develop on the sites given the areas shown on the map either. There were no
further questions from the commission.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. John Ward, represented the applicant. Noted two points this is a
minor subdivision and the second phase of site planning and architectural design would need to return to the
commission. Noted that three neighbors on Vista Lane are in support, submitted petitions, will work with all
neighbors. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica moved to recommend the tentative and final parcel map to the City Council for approval. The
motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the tentative and final parcel map to the
City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, Cers. Cauchi,
Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:35 p.m.
C. Brownrigg returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias.
15
DENHAM, ITC.
March 14, 2007
To: Ruben Hurin, project planner
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA. 94010-3997
RE: 12 Vista Lane Subdivision
Response to Planning Commissioners' inquiries
Dear Mr. Hurin,
RECEIVED
MAR 16 2007
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Our response to the Planning Commissioners' comments and inquiries expressed
at meeting of March 12 is as follows:
1. The original subdivision request was filed in October 2001. The first staff
response was dated November 30, 2001. It took until June 2005 to appear in front
of the Commission due to an added requirement from City Engineer that the soils
report be prepared and delays incurred in resolving legal issues over an
encroachment by adjacent neighbor. Final parcel map was approved by the City
Council in August 2005 after almost four years of effort. The following
conditions were imposed by City Council's action:
A) Developmental approvals are not part of this mapping action.
B) The maintenance responsibilities for the proposed private storm drain and
sanitary sewer easements as well as associated pipelines shall be noted on the
final map.
C) All property corners shall be set in the field and shown on the map
2. The variance is requested in response to the Commission's desire to reduce the
amount of impervious surface and provides for better overall site planning.
Variance is not required for the subdivision under the cul-de-sac alternative. The
future residences will be designed to conform with Burlingame's Architectural
Design Review policies, including but not limited to mass, bulk, lot coverage and
FAR. The Commission has full discretion to impose limitations or restrictions
during such proceedings.
3. Same response as item #2 applies. Please note that the proposed building pads for
the lots shown on variance alternative are closer to Vista Lane and therefore
would create a larger backyard on the most gently sloping terrain of this property.
Due to the amount of square footage required to accommodate the cul-de-sac, the
building pads with that alternative are pushed further to the east and would
require greater height at rear of structures.
1
DENHAM, LLC.
4. The drainage, sewer, driveway construction, from both a planning and
engineering standpoint, will comply with City's rules and regulation and can be
addressed as conditions of approval.
5. Residents living in the surrounding unincorporated area have the ability to voice
their opinions in public hearings on a proposed project within the city limits. In
contrast, the same opportunity does not apply in terms of projects in the
unincorporated area as the County does not have a design review process in place.
It should also be noted that the County has very liberal rules pertaining to
development of single-family homes in Burlingame Hills as witnessed by recent
construction of very large hillside residences in this vicinity.
6. We researched it and could not find an explanation as to why this rule was
adopted.
7. The lower lot has an approved driveway access off Adeline. Please review
attached approved map. Development of the two lots off Vista will not affect the
approved driveway access or have other impacts for the lower lot owned by
Applicant.
8. Same response on item#2 applies. A conceptual architectural perspective will be
provided prior to public hearing to show how the two lots will function together.
Regards,
DENHAM, LLC.
851 Burlway Road Suite# 710
Burlingame, CA. 94010
MAR 1 6 2007
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
395.87•�'3 —
1
A.P.N. 027-093-090
LANDS OF LABRIE
jM
t i 4FO Cou/vr?/
OWNER AND SL
DENHAM LLC & HDYA
BURLWAY, SUITE 610 E
94010 TEL(650)579-/
A.P.N. 027-093-110
ZONING: R-1
a�M1y�l4
i
UTILITIES:
,m Y
GAS: PG & E
Q
ELECTRIC: PG & E
�M1tr o m 1
SEWER: CITY OF BUR
°
A.P.N. 027-091-090
TELEPHONE: sec
CABLE TV: cOMCAST
LANDS OF CHRISMAN
FIRE PROTECTION: Cl
WATER: CITY OF BUR
LAND SURVEY(
-.-R
� ae�
UiVlY 00RP i TED
AND CIVIL ENG
SA, TEEO
OSTTREET
965�CEENTEERR
G
COUNTY
SAN CARLOS . CA. 91
TEL.(650)593-8580
I t�d-taT
\
Wr§4gt56'00"E ,-CITY LJlulff LINE
J/A.P.N.027-091-070
LANDS OF LUCERO
UP?(# € 0,RPM?,RA TEC)
CyOO T Y
Z Y
uy� LAND
� o
CNIL J No. 5304 m
i No. 35048 +° a 4F 12_31_3
ap. s-3D-�ao
f OF CAL` ! OF CAL'
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 1n°D � PD R
NoM DESDRIPn. I'
VESTING -ENTATiVE PAF
PRE_MINARY GRADING / DR
V6TA LANE
A.P.N. 027-093-111
CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATEO COUP
PREPARED FOR: DENHAM LLC
Mac LEOD AND ASSC
CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND
965 CENTER STREET. SAN CARLOS CA
DEscNm er. WG DAIS 1/'11/1
12 Vista Lane
Correspondence Submitted After the March 12, 2007
Planning Commission Study Meeting
RECEIVED
APR 0 3 2007
4/02/07
Ruben Hurin CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
401 Primrose Rd
Burlingame Ca. (4010
Re: Lot split of 12 Vista Lane
Dear Mr. Rubin,
I am writing this letter because I understand you are in charge of this project. I would like
to voice my disapproval of this proposed plan.
My wife and I have lived on Vista Lane for 20 years in May of this year. We have seen
many things change on this block over the years. Our property was the one chosen by the
city to use as an easement to put in the water main for the fire hydrants on Vista and
Adeline Drive. We worked with the City of Burlingame in order to make it as easy of an
install as possible. The worst part of the whole plan was the fact that the access to Vista
was hampered by the equipment working on the street for 2 months while the water main
was installed This street is not very wide and for two cars to pass each other it is
extremely tight. Put in some construction equipment moving on and off that lot at the top
of the hill and it creates some real concerns.
I know that a house will eventually get built on the lot, but I don't think that there should
be two. The City requires that the frontage of a lot to be 60 feet and according to the
proposal there is not that amount of room to split the lot into 2 lots.
Originally that was one big lot that was split into two. The original plans showed that
only one house was going to be built on that lot closest to Vista Lane and that another
could be built on the lot on Adeline. What has changed that would allow two houses to be
built at the Vista Lane lot? The access to the street is still the same and we don't think
that having two houses on that lot is the safest thing for the rest of the neighborhood. I
worry about the lack of street parking and adding two more houses adds to that problem.
I worry about increased traffic on an already narrow street.
Mr. Rubin I hope when you evaluate this project you keep in mind the original proposal
of building just one house on that lot from the original splitting of that lot. When the lot
was owned by the Sisters of Mercy I didn't worry about houses being built there, I just
loved the view from the top of the lot. I know that there will be some sort of development
on the lot, but please let it be just one house and lets not over crowd an already tight
street with more cars and traffic.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns on the project and look forward to your
decision and re"e to 0 objections to this project.
Sincerely,
f�� f
Frank and Monica Verducci
MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ.
MARL D. BENDER, ESQ.
JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ.
IM) _U
MICHAEL B. ALLEN
LAW GROUP, INC.
April 2, 2007
Via Facsimile (650) 696-3790 and U.S. Mail
Ruben Hurin, Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA
Dear Mr. Hurin:
THE WESTLAKE BUILDING
520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840
SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402
TEL: (650) 347-5000
FAX: (650) 340-6350
I have enclosed a photograph of the Thomases' view from their kitchen that would be completely
blocked if a two-story house is built on 12 Vista Lane which extends beyond the oak tree on that
lot. The kitchen is on the lower floor of the Thomases' house and is where they eat all of their
meals.
The view photograph enclosed with my March 30, 2007 letter was taken from an office on the
second floor of the Thomases' house. This view would also be impacted if two houses are built
on 12 Vista Lane.
If you have any questions please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL B. ALLEN LAW GROUP, INC.
MARC D. BENDER, ESQ.
marc@mballenlaw.com
Enclosures
cc: Larry Anderson (w/ enclosure)
Art and Eileen Thomas (w/ enclosure)
Denham, LLC (w/ enclosure)
APR 0 4 Z007
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
k
:gig
/� � � � \� \ � j \
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ.
ALLEN & BENDER TEL: (650) 347-5000
MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Fax: (650) 340-6350
JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. THE WESTLAKE BUILDING
520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840
SAN MATED, CALIFORNIA 94402
marc@mbaUenlaw.com
March 30, 2007
Via Facsimile (650) 696-3790 and U.S. Mail
Ruben Hurin
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
�.�®
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997-
Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA APR 0 2 2007
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Dear Mr. Hurin: PLANNING DEPT.
This letter provides further support for the denial of Denham LLC's application to subdivide the
lot located at 12 Vista Lane.
Denham has indicated in its application that County frontage requirements are different from
Burlingame's requirements. Under Burlingame Municipal Code §25.28.050(a)(3), any lot over
10,000 square feet must have at least 60 foot frontage on "a public street". Since this code section
does not limit its application to frontage on Burlingame streets, it must apply to frontage on any
public street. Pursuant to Government Code §66411, regulation of subdivisions is vested in the
legislative body of the local agency where the subdivision is located. Therefore, the frontage
requirements under the Burlingame Municipal Code govern this subdivision, not the San Mateo
County Code or Ordinances.
The proposed subdivision of 12 Vista Lane violates Burlingame Municipal Code §25.28.050(a)(3)
because it would involve 55 foot street frontages. A variance should not be granted regarding this
frontage requirement since no exceptional circumstances exist with respect to the subject property,
and the creation of two (2) parcels would significantly affect public safety due to the increase in
traffic on Vista Lane.
Vista Lane is sloped downhill and is narrow in the area in front of the subject lot. (See enclosed
photograph). The only way to access homes on this street is to drive past 12 Vista Lane. The
addition of two houses in this portion of Vista Lane would create serious traffic problems on both
Vista Lane and Hillside Drive.
The views of neighboring residences would also be adversely affected since houses on the
subdivided lot would have to extend beyond the existing oak tree on the lot. I have enclosed a
Ruben Hurin
Re: 12 Vista Lae
March 30, 2007
Page 2
photograph of the current Bay view from the kitchen of my clients' property located at 16 Vista
Lane. This view would be significantly blocked if 12 Vista Lane is subdivided.
The proposed subdivision would be subject to various requirements under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), including submission of an environmental impact report,
initial study, negative declaration and public hearing process. Denham's proposed subdivision is
not exempt from CEQA requirements, since a variance is required and the subject property is part
of the division of a larger parcel within the previous two (2) years. (14 Cal. Code of Regulations,
§15315). Please note that 12 Vista Lane was initially part of a larger lot that was subdivided in
August, 2005.
Therefore, if the Planning Commission is inclined to grant the variance despite the safety concerns
and impact on neighboring views referenced above, it would not be appropriate to approve the
subdivision of 12 Vista Lane without first undergoing the investigations required by CEQA.
I understand that Denham has submitted an alternative proposal to build a cul-de-sac which would
provide access to two (2) houses that would be even farther back on the subdivided lot. This
proposal would involve more blockage of neighboring views and would still result in an increase
in the number of vehicles on Vista Lane on a daily basis. It would also require an additional
2,300 square feet of impervious surface, which would be contrary to the Planning Commission's
policy of minimizing the amount of impervious surface within city limits.
The proposed cul-de-sac would have to be built over the area where a large abandoned water tank
is located. (See enclosed photograph). Denham, LLC would most likely be required to remove
the tank and install adequate weight -bearing support under the cul-de-sac, which would trigger
further environmental review and tremendous engineering concerns with respect to Vista Lane
and the surrounding hillside properties. The proposed cul-de-sac would also be subject to CEQA
requirements since the subject lot is part of a larger subdivision within the past two (2) years.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN & BENDER
A Professional Corporation
MARC D. BENDER
RECEIVED
Enclosures
cc: Larry Anderson
(w/ enclosures)
Art and Eileen Thomas
(w/ enclosures)
APR 0 2 2007
Denham, LLC
(w/ enclosures)
Steve Schefsky
(w/ enclosures)
CITY GAME
Niall McCarthy
(w/ enclosures)
AN ING D PT.
PLANNING DEPT.
Jerry Warren
(w/ enclosures)
�
�
/ � �r
� � ��
�
�
�:
��'
`+��'
?a
��.Y4,•
..,.
- �/P,..
r
^�
i
Y,,j.,i
a��t
�
s�
y'
f
t � � ��
�.
�. � i
� . -.
�f
:�
_
�.����
r
� .�
.
. �
_
-
.. w ..
1�
�7
f �
�
J �s
�� �, �
"�A
s.
�
�:.��
_
,r "yamti ' Z
\jkPhItc 6
I Orxo-�,
REC'EIVED
APR - 2 2007
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Tim Auran, Chairman
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Michael Brownrigg, Vice Chair
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Ralph Osterling
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Stanley Vistica
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
March 28, 2007
RECEIVED
David Cauchi
City of Burlingame Planning Comb AR418 2007
501 Primrose Road
INGAME
Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OF PLANNINGBURNG DEPT.
D
Jerry Deal, Secretary
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Richard Terrones
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Margaret W. Monroe, City Planner
City of Burlingame Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Proposed Variance for Subdivision of Parcel A, Block 4, Burlingame Hills, No. 2
Subdivision, 12 Vista Lane
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing to you regarding the proposed variance for the further subdivision of Parcel A,
Block 4, Burlingame Hills, No. 2 Subdivision at 12 Vista Lane in Burlingame (the "12 Vista
Lane No. 2 Subdivision"). As homeowners of the surrounding homes, we would like to voice
our legal and environmental concerns with the 12 Vista Lane No. 2 Subdivision.
First and foremost, as a prerequisite to the variance application for the 12 Vista Lane No. 2
Subdivision, the applicant must first follow the legal requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA applies to any public agency's decision to authorize
or approve projects that could have an adverse effect on the environment. See Public Resources
Code Sections 21000 et seq. CEQA requires a full and complete analysis of potential
environmental impacts, including without limitation, the preparation of an initial study, a
negative declaration, a public hearing and a comment process. There are certain exemptions to
CEQA; however, no such exemption applies here.
A misstatement was made that this variance application for the 12 Vista Lane No. 2 Subdivision
would comply with "Categorical Exemption, Section 15315 "Minor Land Division" under
CEQA for four or fewer parcels". This is patently false. Section 15315 of CEQA states: "Class
15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial or
industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General
Plan and zoning no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the
proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a
1
larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope
greater than 20 percent." CEQA Article 19, Section 15315 (Emphasis added). Section 15315
of CEQA fails to apply to this variance application for the following three separate and distinct
reasons: (i) the division is not in conformance with the General Plan and zoning and a variance
would be required; (ii) the parcel was involved in a division of a larger parcel within the
previous 2 years (i.e. the parcel was divided in August 2005); and (iii) the parcel does have an
average slope greater than 20 percent.
After complying with the requirements of CEQA, the applicant must also comply with the
requirements of Section 25.54.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, which requires in part
that: "... a variance may be granted provided that the commission finds, after a full investigation
and public hearing, that ... the following is true: ... (b) the granting of the application is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and
to prevent unreasonable property loss or unreasonable hardship; (c) the granting of the
application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience..." Neither of
the following conditions is true here. For instance, the applicant, Denham LLC, is a corporation
which is in the business of developing properties for profit. Among other properties, the
applicant owns a very large home at 20 Vista Lane and 8 multi -million dollar condominiums in
downtown Burlingame (most of which are currently vacant). In contrast, building two massive
homes on the sites would pose significant safety and general welfare issues for the
neighborhood, as the sites are on a steep, hilly terrain, with many underground springs (which
have already caused flooding for residents on Vista Lane and Adeline Drive). Thus, approval of
this variance would cause irreparable harm to the environment and surrounding properties.
Conclusion and Request
The applicant must comply with CEQA, including the preparation of an initial study, a negative
declaration, a public hearing and a comment process, before applying for a variance. Approval
of this variance without complying with CEQA would violate state and local laws. If such
approval was to occur and we were forced to initiate legal action to enforce CEQA, Section
1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure would authorize us, as a private attorney general, to
recover our attorney fees from the City of Burlingame. We kindly request that you require the
applicant to first comply with CEQA before hearing its request to further subdivide 12 Vista
Lane (which had just been subdivided less than 2 years ago) and deny its application for a
variance.
Regards,
The following owners of homes around 12 Vista Lane:
;omeov%
ddress:
i 0 ignaturi
Homeowner:
rAddress:
Signature:
�<-U (l BAWL- (/R C�W w a
Homeowner:
Homeowner:
Address:
Address:
Signature:
Signature:
Homeowner:
Homeowner:
Address:
Address:
Signature:
Signature:
Homeowner:
Homeowner:
Address:
Address:
Signature:
Signature:
Homeowner:
Homeowner:
Address:
Address:
Signature:
Signature:
3
RECEIVED
MAY 2 4 2007
TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I am a property owner in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed
that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a
proposed two -lot subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the
proposed subdivision, we understand that the applicant has.presented two alternatives for
the Commission's consideration in tests of providing access to the new homesites,
including one requiring a variance and the other a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the
subdivision nor to the alternatives and would request that this statement be included in
the public record of the Commission's hearing scheduled for April 9, 2007.
Name L�— Address 2i (., l l 5
Somo_ Sohy) Date % 3Q(y--�
inn Fi ZCL6ZtCo99 %v3 t9:90 Loot/oc/Co
MAY 2 4 2007
INGAME
TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION CITYAN PLANNING
DEFT.
PLANNING DEPT.
I am a property owner in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed
that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a
proposed two -lot subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the
proposed subdivision, we understand that the applicant has presented two alternatives for
the Commission's consideration in terms of providing access to the new homesites,
including one requiring a variance and the other a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the
subdivision nor to the alternatives and would request that this statement be included in
the public record of the Commission's hearing scheduled for April 9, 2007.
e
Name V
Address W - I8 —
�J 444""rzJ CA q V 0 1 v
Date
MAY 2 4 2007
TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COIMIIVIISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
We are residents of unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed that the
Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a proposed
two -lot subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the proposed
subdivision, we understand that the applicant has presented two alternatives for the
Commission's consideration in terms of providing access to the new homesites, including
one requiring a variance and the other a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the
subdivision nor to the alternatives and would request that this statement be included in
the public record of the Commission's hearing scheduled for April 9, 2007.
Name lN Address
t.J a
clnN Ghdrib Date 7
RECENED
MAY 2 4 Z007
TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COM117ISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I am a property owner in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed
that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a
proposed two -lot subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the
proposed subdivision, we understand that the applicant has presented two alternatives for
the Commission's consideration in terms of providing access to the new homesites,
including one requiring a variance and the other a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the
subdivision nor to the alternatives and would request that this statement be included in
the public record of the Commission's hearing scheduled for April 9, 2007.
Name �>G/b1 ; ►'� Address
_� Date ��
n x cS i r anoot biait - biscetto @sbcglobaJ.a,,t
http:trias.f817
I of 2
�.TBTyaixl M—e- sawch:
,
¢ w.t� sl
a t&� dv� t Welcome, b1scetto0sbcyioha...
s✓i. Mafl Name Tpiariar4
sy Accoar.Lt
MAIL [Sion put i
Mail ` Addresses - Calendar - Notepad - MRII For Mobile -MIIiluourar3oa-O
Check mail Compose Seam l4aiL Search tis� Sk
Check Rthlr Mail [Edit)
mail.tweswiich-
r-oldars [Add - Edit)
Inbox
Draft
Sent
Bulk(1) [Empty]
Trash t&npty]
MY Fokters (Hide]
946 howard
AOL_Mail
e! and archdioses
alioto
baseball
basketball gals
boyd
cautfield
crescent-chetc...
debbie sharp
gtanma
hillside project
lonjohnson
Sunardi
mist sports
morn for auntie ann
pauls private
Pictures
poker p"
putterman
san raymundo
school
south city prop_
t (Hiss
tennis
tnave!
yeltY
5aarch shorivutg
My Photos
View Attachment {3a'ue to Griain,, Me ne -Printable view VT5r0E IN'
Pile name: Vsta Lane supporters_doc I Pile Save to Yahool Briefcase - Down[asa f
type: application/mSword Need Help?
TO: BURL[NGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
I am a property ovular in the unincorporated Burlingame hills and have been informed th
Surtingame Planning Commission v it! conduct a public hearing to consider a proposed b
subdivision to create n*W homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the proposed subdivision, w
understand that the applicant has presented two alternatives for the Commission's
consideration in terms of providing access to the new homesites, including one requiring
variance and the other cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the subdivision nbr to the
alternatives and vrould r that " taternent be included in the public record of the
Comrriiss" '/�9 aduled ril 9, 20o7, i
Name / Address
Date �
RECEIVED
MAY 2 4 2007
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I
TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
REC NED
MAR 3 0 2007
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I am a property owner in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed
that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a
proposed two -lot subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the
proposed subdivision, we understand that the applicant has presented two alternatives for
the Commission's consideration in terms of providing access to the new homesites,
including one requiring a variance and the other a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the
subdivision nor to the alternatives and would request that this statement be included in
the public record of the Commission's hearing scheduled for April 9, 2007.
Name �X—� �-) h Address C;� S�A Uh VV\ J_
Date
RECEIVE®
MAR 3 0 2007
TO: BUI LINGAW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I am a properly owner in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed
that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a
proposed two -lot subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the
proposed subdivision, we understand that the applicant has;presented two alternatives for
the Commission's consideration in tenons of providing access to the new homesites,
including one requiring a variance and the other a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the
subdivision nor to the alternatives and would request that this statement be included in
the public record of the Commission's hearing scheduled for April 9, 2007.
Name AddressD�-
So n,10` Soh y) Date
Zoolj ZCLGZVC099 YVJ 65:90 Loot/oC/CO
KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, AIA
ARCHITECT uGC 176W
205 PARK RD., SUITE 207, BURLINGAME, CA 94610
PH. (650) 342-0237 FAX (650) 342 5114
March 28, 2007
Planning Commission RECEIVED
City Of Burlingame MAR 3 0 2007
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, California 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
RE: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, Ca.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
My wife and I and our family have lived at 2855 Adeline Drive for the past 12
years. My property extends up to Vista lane and I have frontage and access from Vista
Lane. I have been informed that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a
public hearing on April 9 to consider a proposed two -lot subdivision at 12 Vista Lane. I
have reviewed the plans for the two alternatives prepared by Dan Macleod and
Associates.
It is my professional opinion that even though the subdivision with a cul-de-sac
alternative is allowed under City guidelines, I believe the variance alternative represents
better site planning and will reduce the impervious surfaces, creating a great opportunity
for landscaping that will visually enhance the streetscape.
I fully support this subdivision as it is proposed.
R sp,,Ctf,:lly yours,
Kamran Ehsanipour
Property owner
E-mail: kamran@ehsanipour.Com Website: w .ehsanipour.Com
.ARCHITECTURE .PLANNING .ENGINEERING . INTERIOR DESIGN .CONSTRUCTION
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL B. ALLEN, FSQ. ALLEN & BENDER TEL: (650) 347-5000
MARC D. BENDER, FSQ. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Fax: (650) 340-6350
JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. THE WESTLAKE BUILDING
520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840
SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402
marc@mballenlaw.com
March 22, 2007
Via Facsimile1650) 696-3790 and U.S. Mail
Ruben Hurin
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA
Dear Mr. Hurin:
I represent Arthur and Eileen Thomas, who reside at 16 Vista Lane, Burlingame, California.
I understand that Denham, LLC has applied to the Burlingame Planning Commission for approval
to divide the lot located at 12 Vista Lane into two (2) parcels, and for a variance of the
requirement that lots in the R-1 District have at least 60 foot street frontage.
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas vehemently oppose Denham's application. Vista Lane is a steep
downward -sloping street. The only entry onto Vista Lane involves a sharp northbound turn from
Hillside Drive. The subject property is located close to this entry point. The creation of a second
parcel on this lot would result in increased traffic on Vista Lane. The driveways on the proposed
lots would create considerable vehicular congestion and greatly affect the safety of Vista Lane.
Residents would be forced to maneuver around cars at the top of Vista Lane on a daily basis in
order to enter or exit this street.
Vista Lane has always been a quiet cul-de-sac with homes on large lots that have views of the San
Francisco Bay. The configuration of the proposed houses on the divided lot is not compatible
with neighboring homes on Vista Lane or Hillside Drive. The proposed homes would also block
the Bay views of several neighboring residents. The Planning Commission must consider the
impact of this project on neighboring views, pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code §25.61.060.
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas have lived at 16 Vista Lane since 1973. Their Bay view which they have
had for over 30 years is very important to them. Mr. Thomas is a retired Navy officer who spent a
significant portion of his career as a pilot of boats across the Bay. The rear portions of the
proposed houses on 12 Vista Lane would completely block the Thomases' view and greatly
reduce the amount of sunlight on their property. If the lot were divided into two (2) parcels, it
MAR 2 6 Z007
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Ruben Hurin
Re: 12 Vista Lae
March 22, 2007
Page 2
would be impossible to reconfigure the proposed houses on the lot in order to accommodate the
Thomases' view and preserve their sunlight. Other neighboring residents would also be affected
in a similar fashion.
Denham's application for a variance of the 60 foot frontage requirement should be denied because
it does not meet the criteria set forth in Burlingame Municipal Code §25.54.020, due to the safety
issues, incompatibility of the proposed houses and loss of view as referenced above. Further
grounds for denial of the application may be raised at the hearing on this matter.
I understand that you recently informed another resident on Vista Lane that the hearing on
Denham's application will take place before the Planning Commission on Monday, April 9, 2007.
Please contact me to confirm that this item will be on the agenda for that meeting.
I encourage you to visit this property prior to the hearing. Mrs. Thomas will be available from
March 26, 2007 through April 3, 2007 if you would like to come to 16 Vista Lane to see the
Thomases' view and the potential impact of construction on the subject property.
Please call me to arrange this site inspection.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN & BENDER
A Professional Corporation
MARC D. BENDER, ESQ.
cc: Denham, LLC
Steve Shefsky
Niall McCarthy
. owlvtu
LIAR 2 6 2007
CITY OF BURUNGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
WCNAEL B. Auw. Esq.
MARC D. BENDER, ESQ.
JONATHAN r)..WHOP, ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF
ALLEN & BENDER
A PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATION
THE V OTLAXE BUILDING
520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840
SAN MATEO, CALIPOMLA 44402
=Comballealaw.com
March 22, 2007
Via Facsimile (650) 696-3790 and U.S. Mail
Ruben Hurin
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA
Dear Mr. Hurin:
TEL: (650) 347.5000
IFU: (650) 340-6350
RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 2007
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I represent Arthur and Eileen Thomas, who reside at 16 Vista Lane, Burlingame, California,
1 understand that Denham, LLC has applied to the Burlingame Planning Commission for approval
to divide the lot located at 12 Vista Lane into two (2) parcels, and for a variance of the
requirement that lots in the R-1 District have at least 60 foot street frontage.
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas vehemently oppose Denham's application. Vista Lane is a steep
downward -sloping street_ The only entry onto Vista Lane involves a sharp northbound turn from
Hillside Drive. The subject property is located close to this entry point. The creation of a second
parcel on this lot would result in increased traffic on Vista Lane. The driveways on the proposed
lots would create considerable vehicular congestion and greatly affect the safety of Vista Lane.
Residents would be forced to maneuver around cars at the top of Vista Lane on a daily basis in
order to enter or exit this street.
Vista Lane has always been a quiet cul-de-sac with homes on large lots that have views of the San
Francisco Bay. The configuration of the proposed houses on the divided lot is not compatible
with neighboring homes on Vista Lane or Hillside Drive. The proposed homes would also block
the Bay views of several neighboring residents. The Planning Commission must consider the
impact of this project on neighboring views, pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code §25,61,060.
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas have lived at 16 Vista Lane since 1973. Their Bay view which they have
had for over 30 years is very important to them. Mr. Thomas is a retired Navy officer who spent a
significant portion of his career as a pilot of boats across the Bay. The rear portions of the
proposed houses on 12 Vista Lane would completely block the Thomases' view and greatly
reduce the amount of sunlight on their property. If the lot were divided into two (2) parcels, it
TO 39bd a3QN39 N3-nV OSE90PEO99 £Z:TT L00Z/ZZ/£0
Ruben Hurin
Re: 12 Vista Lae
March 22, 2007
Page 2
would be impossible to reconfigure the proposed houses on the lot in order to accommodate the
Thomases' view and preserve their sunlight. Other neighboring residents would also be affected
in a similar fashion.
Denham's application for a variance of the 60 foot frontage requirement should be denied because
it does not meet the criteria set forth in Burlingame Municipal Code §25.54,020, due to the safety
issues, incompatibility of the proposed houses and loss of view as referenced above. Further
grounds for denial of the application may be raised at the hearing on this matter.
I understand that you recently informed another resident on Vista Lane that the hearing on
Denham's application will take place before the Planning Commission on Monday, April 9, 2007.
Please contact me to confirm that this item will be on the agenda for that meeting.
I encourage you to visit this property prior to the hearing. Mrs. Thomas will 'be available from
March 26, 2007 through April 3, 2007 if you would like to come to 16 Vista Lane to see the
Thomases' view and the potential impact of construction on the subject property.
Please call me to arrange this site inspection.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN & BENDER
A Professional Corporation
MARC D. BENDER, ESQ.
cc: Denham, LLC
Steve Shefsky
Niall McCarthy
Z0 39dd 83QN39 N371V 09£90b£099 EZ:tt G00Z/ZZ/£0
MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ.
MARC D. BENDER, ESQ.
JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF
ALLEN & BENDER TEL: (650) 347-5000
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Fax: (650) 340-6350
THE WESTLAKE BUILDING
520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840
SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402
marc@mballenlaw.com
March 20, 2007
Ruben Hurin
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA
Dear Mr. Hurin:
I represent Arthur and Eileen Thomas, who reside at 16 Vista Lane which is adjacent to 12 Vista
Lane, Burlingame.
Please send me copies of all future hearing notices and staff reports regarding the pending
application for tentative parcel map and variance for lot frontage by Denham, LLC. with respect to
12 Vista Lane.
Additionally, please call me to discuss the status of the pending application and inform me of the
next hearing date and time.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN & BENDER
A Professional Corporation
MARC D. BENDER. ESQ.
r-
^AR 2 v Z007
cc: Art and Eileen Thomas CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEFT.
a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD - BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 - f: 650.696.3790 - www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
❑ Design Review Variance Parcel #: O� 1 • J )
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit Other:
9 Please indicate the contact person for this project
APPLICANT project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: ✓ C-4 1 A M LLr
Address
•r�nr -�
Phone:
r
V
E-mail: 0
PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: Dp-W}.&M t,"
Address: �7 0114
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip: SAAJ it U) 01 - 9!1-0 7Z?
Phone: / !i r,12 r �i 2�_�� 9! 7
Fax
x Burlinaame Business License #: I �3�
§ECEIVED
0 Z000
P, OF BURLINGAME
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 5,2, .1)) I -A $1sti 1 �.tANNING DEPT.
AFFADAVITISIGNATURE: I hereby certif under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. --
Applicant's signature: Date: //� f D 9
I am aware of the proposed ap Ica Ion and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature:
Date:
Date submitted
* Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid.
❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S:1Handouts\PC Application 2008-B.handout
2009
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
V L U
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
.iP•i lNGAUIE
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship might result form the denial of the application.
C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity%
Handouts\Variance Application.2007
RECENED
1 €"f 2009
A. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appr'cle'b`y8"fir
property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
As background, the applicant purchased the subject property eight years ago from the
Sisters of Mercy who had annexed it in the 1979 along with other parcels, wanting to,. keep all
of their holdings within the City limits of Burlingame. This decision created a unique
circumstance with a finger of land under city jurisdiction and the surrounding properties on the.
three sides of the subject site in the unincorporated area. The lower portion of the subject site is
served from Adeline Drive and that section of street was annexed to the City at the same time,
while the western or upper portion of the annexed property is served from Vista Lane, which is
owned and maintained by the County of San Mateo. This situation thus becomes an underlying
issue as the city considers the applicant's request for subdiving the one-half acre into two lots
to be accessed from Vista. It should be noted that the county's policies for development in the
Burlingame Hills area considered more "liberal" when compared to the City of Burlingame,
e.g. policies encourage second units which are not allowed in the city, except as legally
grandfathered (existing and non -conforming structures). The minimum frontage required for
parcels in the county's S-9 zoning district (neighboring properties) is only 50 feet. Five out of
the nine lots facing Vista Lane have less than 50 feet of frontage. The City's zoning code
requires that any lot annexed after May 31, 1960 shall have a minimum lot size of 10,000
square feet, and further requires a minimum of 60 feet of public street frontage. The
applicant's parcel is approximately 21,000 square feet, considerably larger than most parcels
within the City of Burlingame, far exceeding the minimum lot size threshold of 10,000 square
feet established by the annexation policy. The policy does not address the unique
circumstances now facing the applicant whose property lies within the city limits, but fonts on
a county public street. After several meetings of the City Engineers, Public Works Director,
City Planner and City Attorney, it was concluded that a subdivision of the subject site could be
approved without a variance by providing access from a cul-de-sac off Vista Lane. (See
attachment "A") the cul-de-sac will be open for public use, and would privately owned and
maintained. While the cul-de-sac scenario meets the minimum street frontage requirements, it
would require an additional 2,300 square feet of impervious surface. The planning commission
has expressed a public position that minimizing the amount of impervious surface is preferred
from an environmental standpoint. The condition described above is an exceptional, unique,
and extraordinary circumstance which applies only to this property in the City.
B. Explain why the variance request is necessaryfor the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship
might result from denial of the application.
As previously stated, it was determined that while two lots off Vista Lane could be created
without a variance by building of a cul-de-sac. This alternative would not represent the best site
planning as 2,300 square feet of additional asphalt paving or other impervious surface would be
required. This alternative also creates an unnecessary visual and environmental impact as well
as a reduction in useable front yard landscape area. A variance request is being made because
without creating the cul-de-sac, each of the two lots will have 55' (feet) of frontage versus 60'
(fee) required under the annexation policy.
C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
Properties on Vista Lane and throughout the surrounding areas, whether in the unincorporated
County or City of Burlingame, consist of single-family homes. The proposed subdivision is
therefore consistent with the neighborhood character and will not be injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.
D. How will the proposed project be compatible with aesthetic..; mass, b ulik and character of
the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?
The future residences will be designed to conform with Burlingame's Architectural Design
Review policies. The aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the future residences will be
compatible with those in the general vicinity and will comply with all Burlingame's land use
regulations.
47 � a
1�3-94® h
ZN
1 FOUNC 3 4 IRON M1 L F 0 BRASS TAG I- v I
i.i 27y PLUG TACK RETAINING WALL PIPES PITH PLA C .° 9,ta MY/COUNT" 790 - .
5304 PLUG AND T " 76-65 S FOUNiet D 3/4' IRON
Off" °9 ° S 34'56.00' W 10 91 CHAINUNK ENCE — 'LSS Sm Cam, 200.45� Lj"T L O 5 ENC .. ki9 X PPLUG AND TACK
,r PORARY q� Ii ?fp ?p8 ?pg Z04 88.Go, 8200' 30 'LS 5304' '
POF FIRE -- -- --- — — -- �Pp--_ —�' WIDE-- M CI O B ING
RANT ELEV.- ?
N 6.01 (ASSUM �— , 6 S86'22'00'E
( 21y 12.7 - 5' DE ma`s, P. �•Q� 6y62'
ro 9'
�
GARAGE N 7 \\V2po B7 IX TUNE \
TREN pP4' ` o. i MOTE TED TREE BY PRO �� E P O O° E
=04'03'25•' 21 ^ 212� DRAW ` , k \
s �� TG __ I} CITY AR oRIST g`2 'a:PARC U1 A
P a
I ,I
_100 1 ��s 66 � °, A •1� 1 EXI N LOT L" + 3 ±� V.
TG
R-2T ROPO D FIRE TRUCK .0 \
FDJND LDT 4 216.6 55.43 I 6 _ EM Vm ` Q RNARO D . o POS IBLE HOUSE
' F O PINT Q m NEW 4' //''''�
.b TERAL A C L D, Z
I + STf! BE DEDICATED 216.05 6° RN�N QQ
218.95 TO CIT FOR PUBLIC WE � ^ PROP SxLINE
FP s 2 G LO NE 5P
S 3456'00' W 5242' CJ �s 1 0 W
3626'00' I
I s> 70' R - 125.00
qo o
CO! a, M1 \ O ° ?7 _ 6�Q� d ra 2 L 79.49' C
I \ WATER R'. -P1— --.--i -- — G�, DD
>`3fo , 3— T n N� �2°'' ED 5' —I LsGll G°� LL
I7.
R-2Y FL
0
I L-58.34 •AND SDE OR
I/ N-123'48'10' 7�N v BEN T P CEL li>
—ITS I
14 Q.P.M. O2.7 O =920 Q.P.M. O28=023=93
I ®G�Q� LAND S°^ IF DCEMGBQL`lu � 1 FOUND
ly PIPE WITH PI115'D +°1
rig
0
PLUG AND TACKS 3 I
3LS 3451'
�')
LEGEND:
209.5
P O P S D
I
J4
ARC L 2
I
w
21g
s" 21aa
1ym
CH
4 OSSIBLE HOU E
± `
10,0 .7'.
I
:
-
/
D N �o
FOOT RIN 4
g 6 0
N 6' TORM
tv
Fit
GARAGE I
D aN
I
10'
n 213.8
FF=21&9 I a
s
L73
551'S5'
n
6
•P'
EW 4' SEWER
lu
4
ry
LATER
0
6U /
S49'56'00'E
12 0
E c¢ z1 s�
CITY
F I A
2s.3e�
_
N 34'56'00•
;
C
SS
W59' E
" RETAINING WALL CITY/60 LMp T LIE
� '$ 'O.
"LAST
_
---i
794
_
FOU D 3 ON
PIPE VATH
• c.� PLUG
178.0
TG
5' P.SS.E.
A - 0012'21'
ryM1°
Q.P.M.. 027-110983
AND TACK
.
'LS 5304'
°°UNINCORPORATED
�° NEW 4' SEWEII
LATERAL
�
AND
_
P.SD.E €€
E �' !
� C
R - 225.00
L - 0:81'
FOUND BRASS TAG
LAMDS Off' FUnLLEN&HH & WARREM
SAN MATEO COUNTY
- f a.. `��IN
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
"LS 534"
(�(�
1%iJ _ I 'l 4U 09
OWNER AND SUBDIVIDER:
-
CONC.
CONCRETE
EP
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
DENHAM LLC & HOYA INT.. LLC-
,IT:' OF BURLIIVGAlvi>
CO
SANITARY SLIVER tlFANOUT
JP
JOINT POLE
851 BURLWAY, SUITE 710 BURLINGAME,
- CA 94010 �
o I.4NN1INF1 IFi= T.
EB
ELECTRIC BOX
PSSE
PRIVATE SANITARY
TEL(650)579-4994
GRAPHIC SCALE
SEWER EASEMENT
SSMH
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
PSDE
PRIVATE STORM
ZONING R-1
GB.
GRADE BREAK
DRAIN EASEMENT
TW
TOP OF WALL
TIN
TOP OF WALL
! INS)
1 ImL - 10 }L
TREE
zzo
NEW CON -FOUR
UTILITIES
RE
ND No
°10
DRAY"
By
OIEOCEO
BY
APPROVED
BY
DATE
"
HYDRANT
GAS PG & E
' ELECTRIC:
VESTING TENTATIVE & FINAL PARCEL MAP
INV.
INVERT
PG 8E
SEWER,' CITY OF BURLINGAME
olo
VIM
WATER METER
TELEPHONE AT & T
c
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL' "A' AND PARCEL "B' PER
CABLE W. COMCAST
W
" `o -
PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 76, PAGES 78 & 79, RECORDS OF
YN
Da
WATER VALVE
FIRE PROTECTION: GTY OF BURLINGAME
WATER: CITY OF BURLINGAME�
* ND. 35 48 •
a
ND.
SAN MATEO COUNTY.
—E—
ELECTRIC LINE
-
04 F
1t-3D-xoD7 . 12 31-2D07
•?•IlF CML .pql
CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATED COUNTY CALIFORNIA
— G—
—SS—
GAS LINE
SANITARY SEWER LINE
- LAND SURVEYOR
a�Y ��,
a CAL`4F OF
PREPARED FOR: DENHAM LLC
®
STORM DRAIN LINE
AND. CIVIL ENGINEER:
GVDQCLSl6OD QG�IDD Qc�OLy�W�Cc�
TG
TOP OF GRATE
MAND ASSOCIATES
C.O.
CLEANOUT
965
� 65 CENCD4 TER STREET
CML ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING
FF
FINISH FLOOR
SAN CARLOS , CA 94070
TEL(650)593-8580
-
955 CENTER STREET. SAN CARLOS CA 94-070 (650) 593-8580
FL
FLOW UNE
ATTACHMENT
"All WITH NO VARIANCE
DRAM Dr. AM
� ,_,d
DR2-TND.
_
DERGIn Bor.VPG
DATE 11/26/D3
174-TENT
b�P 1-01\7742-01\1742TFR1AW0
_... I APPV. I SHEET 1 OF T
I
i
J
�j�`
a..ra
4'
I.
LL , t =
J _
Mi
4 I i
F i
r
+iy��yigyl ;G
y i
'mil �.'} r _ - .. � a :, 7., �`� 1 F ,r I `� - -- _. __ _.._- -' —.� � t -- -- --- 'yf�r" • ..
I
I r I
a
L
P.C.
ITEM #
MEMO TO : PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING DIVISION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
SUBJECT: STUDY MEETING FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP
FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL A, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS
NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 12 VISTA LANE - PM 09-04
Site Information:
Zoning:
Existing Lot Size:
Proposed Lot Size:
Required Lot Size:
Required Street Frontage
Backaround:
R-1
21,212 ± Square Feet
Parcel 1=10,537 + Square Feet
Street Frontage = 55 Feet
Parcel 2=10,675 + Square Feet
Street Frontage = 55 Feet
10,000 Square Feet
60 Linear Feet
This parcel map application proposes to subdivide one lot into two lots. Both proposed parcels
do not meet the required sixty feet (60') street frontage (C.S. 25.28.050a-3). Applicant has
applied for a variance for two lots with fifty-five feet (55') of street frontage which is being
processed concurrently.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the map for utilities and easements and has the
following comments:
No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action.
Page 1 of 2
2. The maintenance responsibilities for the proposed private storm drain and sanitary sewer
easements as well as associated pipelines shall be noted in the final map.
3. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map.
This mapping action should be considered as a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for the lot split to
speed processing. Staff will see that the Final Map is properly prepared.
This application is a Categorical Exemption Section 15315, "Minor Land Division" under
C.E.Q.A. for four or fewer parcels.
Attachments: Assessor's Map, Tentative Map
U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\PM09.04.wpd
Page 2 of 2
TAX CODE AREA
PARCEL 3
Al
5J RlRCEL Y I \`�\� 092
/4 /p
091 ZZIT.•w..
I� /0 ., I N Am rr rt.; 5lrn. �sn'trra.�'+�[vAgAgp
tr �.,,. - •e' ; -� I R I� 9 it \ as tor
wvF
1 PARCEL / wrrj lS! x ' /
_6t:
�. ® \ O I 41 71�a4
\I A' • /'� \ \ \ // /o � � n.e' a.r ,fl'Sir' O I °� � � � O I � 1 Q\\ ast
o �!a 'fief ✓ \ \� /ef�. � !x rrr k, nw' n.sx' Ec.l!' n.»' nrt m wn' w.u' !ue' xn' n.tr el.n' I
u!'141
o± Pis Mlib
P.M.51i0
•ti.
r 'n ry
0 .ir
` ! �s) 1 MO P �e I B O ® 'x° e � � 0
L.
/7 "fiS( I ML �. PARCEL 8 e
u C/ _ IA A ; a 6 5'
3 3 v
T is
/0 3 O e
PARCEL
\ I I IGafi' i ^cel B R All
J
r I � /9
16
20
lo
010
17
vi
m9 J I 2/ Ile,
't. / •2' r //
/8
AssEsso#s MAP CoUNIY of JAN MATED GLoF
IL PARCEL MAP VOL 62/68-69
L PARCEL MAP VOL 5/40
BURLINOAME SCHOOL DISTRICT Z� BURLINOAME HILLS N0.2 RSM 14118-19
Project Comments
Date: August 17, 2009
To: 0 City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
0 Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
00, City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
0
Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
0
Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
0
NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0
City Attorney
Subject: Request for Variance for Lot Frontage and Tentative Parcel Map for
Lot Split of Parcel A into Parcel 1 and 2, Block 4, Burlingame Hills
No. 2 Subdivision at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-300
Staff Review:
Z2e
Reviewed by:
Date: 1/3/0
Project Comments
Date: August 17, 2009
To: ❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Subject: Request for Variance for Lot Frontage and Tentative Parcel Map for
Lot Split of Parcel A into Parcel 1 and 2, Block 4, Burlingame Hills
No.2 Subdivision at 12 Vista Lane, PM 09-04 at 12 Vista Lane,
zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-300.
Staff Review: August 17, 2009
No comments at this time.
Reviewed b — Date.
Project Comments
Date: August 17, 2009
To: 0 City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
0 Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
0 City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
0 Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
°'Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
0 NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
Subject: Request for Variance for Lot Frontage and Tentative Parcel Map for
Lot Split of Parcel A into Parcel 1 and 2, Block 4, Burlingame Hills
No.2 Subdivision at 12 Vista Lane, PM 09-04 at 12 Vista Lane,
zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-300.
Staff' Review: August 17, 2009
No comments at this time.
Reviewed by:�%�
Date: 3 (`r"
Date:
To:
From
Project Comments
August 17, 2009
0 City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
0 Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
0 City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
0
Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
0
Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
X
NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0
City Attorney
Subject: Request for Variance for Lot Frontage and Tentative Parcel Map for
Lot Split of Parcel A into Parcel 1 and 2, Block 4, Burlingame Hills
No.2 Subdivision at 12 Vista Lane, PM 09-04 at 12 Vista Lane,
zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-300.
Staff Review: August 17, 2009
No comments
For additional assistance, contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at (650)
342-3727.
Reviewed by: C Date: 6-791/71,,,),�
=h
�I 12
f
' n
r
HILLSIDE DR
EwaW �`',