The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 Vista Lane - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Item No. Action Item Negative Declaration and Variance for Lot Frontage Address: 12 Vista Lane Meeting Date: January 25, 2010 Request: Application for Negative Declaration and 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 Plan: Low Density Residential Parcel 1 — 10,537 SF (proposed) Zoning: R-1 Parcel 2 — 10,675 SF (proposed) CEQA Status: Refer to attached Negative Declaration No. ND-553-P. 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. Please refer to the "Study Meeting" section on pages 4-5 for responses to the Commissions' earlier comments. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2009 as a Study Item and on October 13, 2009 as a Regular Action Item. At its meeting of October 13, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of the property owner's request for a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for a lot split and Variance for lot frontage for creation of two lots with 55-foot wide street frontage where 60 fees of street frontage is required at 12 Vista Lane, Zoned R-1 (see attached October 13, 2009 Planning Commission minutes). On October 26, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution memorializing its October 13, 2009 actions regarding the property owner's requests for a Variance from lot frontage requirements and Tentative and Final Parcel Map approval for property located at 12 Vista Lane. During Planning Commission's review of the application, staff noted that the project was Categorically Exempt from the California Quality Act (CEQA) per Section: 15315. Minor Land Divisions, Class 3 — Class 15 which 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 larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. Prior to being reviewed by the City Council, a neighbor's attorney argued that the lot split was not categorically exempt from CEQA since it required a Variance for lot frontage. As a result, Planning staff prepared an initial study for this project for review by the Planning Commission. Based on the initial study, it has been determined that the proposed project can be covered by a Negative Declaration since no potential significant environmental impacts were identified. The resolution (attached) is a recommendation to the City Council regarding both actions, rather than a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and Variance and recommending approval of the Parcel Map, and includes the specific findings adopted by the Planning Commission supporting its recommendation. Environmental Review: Since the project consists of the subdivision of property which requires a Variance for lot frontage, the project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Planning staff prepared an initial study for this project for review by the Planning Commission. It has been determined that the proposed project can be covered by a Negative Declaration since the initial study did not identify any adverse impacts from the proposed lot split (please refer to the attached Negative Declaration No. 553-P). The Negative Negative Declaration and Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane Declaration was circulated for 20 days for public review. The 20-day review period ended on January 11, 2010. There were no comments were submitted during the review period. The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion, based on the Initial Study, facts in the Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and Planning Commission observation and experience, are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental impact. 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 (see attached August 1, 2005 City Council minutes, approval letter dated August 23, 2005 and City Council staff report). 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: • Negative Declaration, a determination that there are no significant environmental effects as a result of this project; and • Variance for lot frontage for creation of two lots 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). 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 2 Negative Declaration and Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane 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 (September 28, 2009): At the Planning Commission study meeting on September 28, 2009, the Commission had several questions regarding this application (September 28, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes). Below are the questions and responses from staff: 1. What are lots widths and frontages for the adjacent lots within the County? Please refer to Exhibit "A" for a map showing lot widths and frontages for all parcels abutting Vista Lane. 2. Why was the 60-foot frontage requirement adopted? Please refer to the explanation on page 5, Comment #3 under "Study Meeting (March 12, 2007)." 3. What will be the side -yard setback? Will a variance be requested? Lots that are 55'-0" to 60'-0" wide require a minimum side setback of 6'-0" (Code Section 25.28.072, c, 1). Lots greater than 60'-0" wide require a minimum side setback of 7'-0". Based on the "Possible House Footprint" shown for each lot on the Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map, date stamped August 10, 2009, the structures are in compliance with setback requirements. The proposed projects will need to comply with the development standards if effect at the time they are submitted, unless a Variance is requested. 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. This space intentionally left blank. 3 Negative Declaration and Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane 4. Provide San Mateo County development standards that apply to the adjacent properties for comparison. • Please refer to Exhibit "B" which provides a partial zoning map for this area in the County. The parcels in the County abutting the project site are zoned R-1/S-9. The properties on the west side of Vista Lane (11 - 23 Vista Lane) are zoned R-1/S-10. Below is a table providing basic development standards for the City of Burlingame and the two zoning districts in the County (see also Exhibit "C" for Regulations for "S" Districts - Zoning Regulations - San Mateo County). City of Burlingame County of San Mateo R-1 R 1/S-9 County of San Mateo R-1/S-10 Street Frontage: 55'-0" see below see below Avg. Lot Width: 50 -0" 50'-0" I 75 0" -... .....___-_------ ----_._ ........_..... .....-......-._-_----_--. Minimum Lot Size: 10,000 SF 10,000 SF j 20,000 SF Setbacks: Front (1st fir): 15'-0" or block average 20'-0" i 20'-0" (2nd fir): 20'-0" or block average 20'-0" 20'-0" Side (left): 6'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" (right): 6'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" Rear (1st fir): (2nd fir): 15'-0" 20'-0" .... ....... -.... —........ --.—. 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 40% 30% 25% .................... ... ...... -.............................. --- ... -- .-..--......... - - h - .._...................._.. __........................_.._� FAR: (0.32 x lot area) + 1100 SF (att gar) j none none (+ up to 400 SF for det garage) ..................... ..... ...... .......... .....__ _._ l — ........ ......... ----.....- Parking: 2 spaces for 1-4 bedrooms 1 space for 0-1 bedrms 1 space for 0-1 bedrms 3 spaces for 5+ bedrooms 2 spaces for 2+ bedrms 2 spaces for 2+ bedrms Height: 2.5 stories ; 3 stories 3 stories 30 0" 36 -0" * 36 0 DH Envelope: CS 25.28.075 -4 complies CS 25.28.075 * Building height shall be measured as the vertical distance from any point on the finished grade to the topmost point of the building immediately above (Zoning Regulations - San Mateo County). 5. What is the relevance of the rendering provided, will more information be provided, or will a complete design be reviewed? • At the March 12, 2007 Study Meeting, the Planning Commission noted that they wanted to see what the treatment would be between the buildings and the street and how the lot frontage would be developed. The Commission also requested that the applicant explain the building envelope massing foreach of the lots and how that would relate to the area between the building and street. The applicant addressed these requests by providing a rendering. A separate design review application would be submitted in the 2 Negative Declaration and Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane future consisting of complete set of plans, including a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan. 6. Why was the cul-de-sac design not supported by the City? The design would have allowed the lots to meet the minimum lot frontage requirement. The City of Burlingame does not maintain Vista Lane since it is in San Mateo County jurisdiction (the subject site adjoins San Mateo County right-of-way). In a letter dated December 11, 2006 (attached), Assistant Public Works Director Syed Murtuza notes that "The City does not have a need for the right-of- way in front of your project. Dedication of right-of-way between private property and County road creates an island and is not acceptable to the City. The right-of-way should be dedicated to San Mateo County." Furthermore, he notes that "The proposed cul-de-sac ingress and egress deviates from City standards. However, if the County accepts such an arrangement, the City will not have any objections." The Public Works Division also points out that it would not support the cul-de-sac design because it does not meet subdivision requirements and creates a non-standard street configuration. The cul-de-sac design would require County approval because the subject site adjoins their right of way. In addition, it may also require annexation of the private property into the County. 7. Requested an interpretation of whether or not the ability to split the lot represents a substantial property right that should be preserved. • The City Attorney will provide a response at the public hearing. 8. Six letters have been submitted by the neighbors; provide exhibit showing the locations of these neighboring properties. • Please refer to Exhibit "D" for a map showing locations of neighbors which submitted letters of no objection/in support and in opposition to the proposed lot split. Planning staff would note that letters of no objection/in support from neighbors at 1920 Hillside Drive, 289? (address not legible) Hillside Drive and 2814 Summit Drive are located outside of the map area. In addition, the neighbor at 2871 Hillside Drive requested that her name and addressed be removed from letter of objection dated March 28, 2009. 9. What will happen if the neighbors prefer an alternative arrangement for the properties? • The applicant would need to process a revised request for a lot split. 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. 5 Negative Declaration and Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane 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 forthe 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. 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. Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the Negative Declaration (ND-553-P) finding, on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance for lot frontage the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; 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 unnecessary 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; and A Negative Declaration and Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Proposed Resolution for Recommendation: Please take note that the resolution is drafted as a recommendation to the City Council regarding both actions, rather than a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and Variance and recommending approval of the Parcel Map. The applicant's request was for both "Tentative" and "Final" Parcel Map approval. Pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code §26.24.060, the Planning Commission's authority with respect to a Final Parcel Map is to examine it and recommend an action to the City Council. Given that, in this instance, the design of the Parcel Map is entirely dependent upon consideration of a Variance from minimum lot frontage standards, it has been determined that both of the applicant's requests should be moved forward to the City Council for final action; therefore, the Commission's action on both the Negative Declaration and Variance and Parcel Map should be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission is asked to consider making a recommendation regarding the following requests to City Council: • Negative Declaration and Variance for lot frontage for creation of two lots (55 feet lot frontage proposed for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 where 60 feet lot frontage is the minimum required); and • 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 The Planning Commission's recommendation includes the following conditions of approval: 1. that the Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map shall be recorded at the San Mateo County Recorders Office and copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works; and 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 10, 2009 memo and the City Arborist's September 3, 2009 memo shall be met. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Denham LLC, applicant and property owner /GiiFT.LTT4'110 Negative Declaration ND-533-P Memorandum from Public Works Department — Engineering Division, dated November 4, 2009 Email from Pubic Works Department — Engineering Division, dated November 3, 2009 Letter Waiving Objection from Marc D. Bender, attorney for Arthur & Eileen Thomas, dated November 13, 2009 Letter of Objection from Marc D. Bender, attorney for Arthur & Eileen Thomas, dated November 5, 2009 Letter of Objection from Jerry Warren & Susan Fullemann, date stamped November 6, 2009 Letter of Objection from Tatiana Chekasina, dated October 26, 2009 Letter of Objection from Art and Kealani Labrie, date stamped October 13, 2009 Memorandum from Gus Guinan, City Attorney, dated October 8, 2009 7 Negative Declaration and Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane October 13 and 26, 2009 and September 28, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Letter from Syed Murtuza, Assistant Director of Public Works, dated December 11, 2006 Exhibit "A": Existing Lot Widths and Street Frontages for Lots Abutting Vista Lane Exhibit "B": Partial Zoning Map for Lots in San Mateo County Surrounding Project Site Exhibit "C": Regulations for "S" Districts — San Mateo County Exhibit "D": Map of Neighbors that Submitted Letters of No Objection/In Support and In Opposition March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response to Commission's Comments, letter dated March 14, 2007 Letter Submitted by Marc D. Bender, dated September 25, 2009 Correspondence Submitted after the March 12, 2007 Study Meeting August 1, 2005 City Council Minutes, Approval Letter dated August 23, 2005 and City Council Staff Report Application to the Planning Commission Variance Form Rendering Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped August 10, 2009 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed January 15, 2010 Aerial Photo 1.1 MEMO TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2009 SUBJECT: 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 Background: 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. The proposed parcels do not meet the required sixty feet (60) street frontage required by the Municipal Code Section 25.28.050a(3). Applicant has applied for a variance for two lots with fifty-five feet (55') of street frontage. Discussion: At its regular meeting on October 26, 2009, Planning Commission recommended granting a variance to the proposed subdivision. The proposed variance does not impact the Public Works Department. However as the proposed subdivided parcels abut to Vista Lane which is a County street, the applicant will be required to obtain County approval for driveway access at the time of development. The County has indicated that they have no objection to the proposed subdivision (see attached). Page 1 of 2 If Council decides to approve the requested variance, the following conditions shall apply to the proposed subdivision: 1. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action. 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\Privatr\PM09.04A-wpd Page 2 of 2 PMENG-Voong, Victor From: PW/ENG-Murtuza, Syed Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:19 AM To: PW/ENG-Voong, Victor Subject: Fw: Fwd: FW: 12 Vista Lane Subdivision Attachments: 20091031130358969.pdf; CompuServe GIF graphic Thanks Syed -----Original Message ----- From: Joe Lo Coco <jlococo@co.sanmateo.ca.us> To: PW/ENG-Murtuza, Syed <SMurtuza@burlingame.org> CC: Diana Shu <dshu@co.sanmateo.ca.us>; Jim Porter <jporter@co.sanmateo.ca.us> Sent: Tue Nov 03 08:40:29 2009 Subject: Fwd: FW: 12 Vista Lane Subdivision Syed, 2009103113035896 9.pdf (405 KB)... San Mateo County's Public Works Department does not object to the subdivision of the lot at 12 Vista Lane. We are ultimately interested in the proposed property driveway access and simply request that those plans be submitted to us for review and consideration upon the development of plans for this property. Because of the narrowness of the street, the development should include adequate off- street parking. IMAGE.gif (1 KB) > > "PW/ENG-Murtuza, Syed" <SMurtuza@burlingame.org> 11/2/2009 4:39 PM Hi Jim, Per our conversation earlier today, please let me know if the County has any concerns or objection to the approval of the proposed subdivision map at 12 Vista Lane. The Planning Commission has recommended that the proposed lot split of an existing lot into two parcels at 12 Vista Lane be forwarded to City Council for approval. As you may recall that although the subdivision is within the City jurisdiction, however the abutting 1 street is located in the County. The proposed lot split requires a variance for the 55 feet of proposed street frontage where as a 60 feet of street frontage is required in the area. The City Public Works Department did not have any issues with the proposed lot split. Please see the attached staff report to the Planning Commission and meeting minutes. Thank you, Syed MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ. MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. AUIPW L A.,W GRQJJP, INC. November 13, 2009 Via E-Mail (hurinQhurlinwaine.ore) and U.S. Mail THE WESTLAKE BUILDING 520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, surrE 840 SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 TEL. (650) 347-5000 FAx (650) 340-6350 Burlingame City Council RECEIVED 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 NOV 1 3 2009 Re: 12 Vista Lane. Burlin ame, CA CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. (Hearing Date: November 16, 2009) Dear Council Members: Please be advised that Arthur and Eileen Thomas hereby waive their objections to the pending application for subdivision and variance on 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, California. Very truly yours, MICHAEL B. ALLEN LAW GROUP, INC. MARC D. BENDER marc@mballenlaw.com cc: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas John Ward Alex Mortazavi MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ. MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. LAW QROUP, INC. November 5, 2009 Via E-Mail (hurinnaburlingafne.org) and U.S. Mail Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA (Hearing Date: November 16, 2009) Dear Council Members: THE WESTLAKE BUILDING 520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840 SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 TEL: (650) 347-5000 FAX: (650) 340-6350 RECEIVED NOV - 5 2009 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANWNG DEPT. I represent Arthur and Eileen Thomas, who own and reside at 16 Vista Lane, Burlingame, California. The Resolution of the Planning Commission was based on a narrow 4-3 vote among the Commissioners to approve the application for subdivision and variance regarding 12 Vista Lane. The Resolution contradicts the determination made by the Burlingame City Attorney, Gus Guinan, regarding the applicant's legal right to a variance. In Mr. Guinan's Memorandum dated October 8, 2009, he concluded that the ability to subdivide a lot is "NOT a `substantial property right"', which is required for a variance under Burlingame Municipal Code §25.54.020(b). The Resolution fails to provide a basis for the Commission's determination of a variance in light of the City Attorney's contrary opinion and legal analysis. Additionally, the Resolution incorrectly states that the proposed subdivision is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements under Section 15315 of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. I have enclosed a copy of Section 15315 of the California Code of Regulations. That section indicates that a Categorical Exemption for "minor land divisions" will only apply 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 larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the project does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent." (Emphasis added). Burlingame City Council Re: 12 Vista Lane November 5, 2009 Page 2 An application for variance of the frontage requirement is pending before the City Council in this matter. Since a variance is required, the exemption from CEQA under Section 15315 is inapplicable and therefore the Planning Commission's determination regarding an exemption from CEQA is in error. Additionally, the parcel was involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years. This lot was subdivided in August, 2005. Denham, LLC applied for approval of a second subdivision and variance within 2 years, in April, 2007. Denham then withdrew the application and re -submitted the same application in 2009. Denham cannot avoid the 2-year requirement under Section 15315 by delaying the hearing on his application until after the 2-year time period. Therefore, this application is not subject to a categorical exemption of CEQA requirements under Section 15315. CEQA requires that the applicant must submit an initial study and negative declaration of envirou mental impact, and go through a public hearing and comment process, before applying for a variance. Based on the above, the pending application for subdivision and variance regarding 12 Vista Lane cannot be approved by the City Council. Very truly yours, MICHAEL B. ALLEN LAW GROUP, INC. MARC D. BENDER marc@mballenlaw.com Enclosure cc: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Niall McCarthy Page 2 of 2 wdstl�w 14 CA ADC § 15315 14 CCR § 15315 Cal. Admin. Code tit. 14, § 15315 C BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 14. NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION 6. RESOURCES AGENCY CHAPTER 3. GUIDELINES FOR L%IPLEMENTA- TION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ARTICLE 19. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS This database is current through 10/9/09 Register 2000, No. 41 § 15315. Minor Land Divisions. Class 15 consists of the division of property in urban- ized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or indus- Page 1 trial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, a1 services and ac- cess to the proposed parcels to local standards are avail- able, the parcel was not involved in a division of a lar- ger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel. does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21084, Public Resources Code. HISTORY 1: Change without regulatory effect amendingNote filed 10-6-2005 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2005, No. 40). 14 CCR § 15315, 14 CA ADC § 15315 1CAC 14 CA ADC § 15315 END OF DOCUMENT C 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&destination=atp&utid=l &prid... 10/23/2009 Jerry Warren & Susan Fullemann #2 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-7202 Fax (650) 697-7059 Email: drjw@burlingamefamilyhealth.com Planning Commission City of Burlingame. RECEIVED Dear Commissioners: NOV - 6 2009 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT- We support our neighbor Arthur Thomas's objections to the proposed development at #12 Vista Lane because of the objections made in his statement. We are unable to appear at the hearing this evening but want our objections to the proposed plan put on record. Sincerely, Jerry Warren Susan Fullemann 2874 Hillside Dr. Burlingame, CA 94010 October 26, 2009 City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Ladies and Gentlemen: We oppose to building two houses on the 12 Vista Lane lot. �miY, f Tatiana Chekasina RECEIVED NOV - 6 2009 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. PC Mtg. 10.13.09 - Item #2 Received After (1.1 of 3) ART & KEALANI LABRIE 2839 ADELINE DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (650) 340-1117 March 7, 2009 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Proposed Sub -divide for 12 Vista Lane Dear Planning Commissioners, RECEIVED OCT i 3 2009 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Early in 2005, the Planning Commission approved a subdivision of the original Sisters of Mercy lot into 2 lots, one on Adeline Drive and one on Vista Lane. The Planning Commission approved the sub -division with the provision* that the developer could show two footprints (one on each lot) that would require no variances. Since then, the planning commission granted a 33-foot height variance to the lot on Adeline drive in spite of the adverse effects it will have on the neighboring lots. Now the developer is, in effect, asking for another variance to cram two houses onto a beautiful lot where an elegant single home could be built which could greatly enhance the neighborhood. The original footprints presented by the developer in 2004 (which he submitted to obtain the original sub -division) should be enforced. Allowing your requirements to be compromised makes the planning commission appear to be wishy-washy. Worse yet, it gives the appearance that this particular developer has some kind of undue influence on the Planning Commission. Granting this request for an additional sub -division will further undermine the Planning Commission's credibility. Ask yourself this question: "Is the granting of this application necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and will it prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship?" The answer is "NO!" Deviating from the conditions under which you granted the original subdivision is a mistake. Sincerely, Art Labrie Kealani Labrie * See attachment Received After (1.2 or s) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TEL:- (650) 558-7230 FAX: (650) 685-9310 November 30, 2004 Denham LLC Attn: Alex Mortazavi 851 Burlway Road, Suite 610 Burlingame, CA 94010 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Re: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Vista Lane, APN 027-093-110 Dear Mr. Mortazavi, The comments for the subject vesting tentative parcel map are as follows; CORPORATION YARD (650)556-7670 Public Works Department, Engineering Division: 1. Plans shall show proposed developmental grading/building footprint to insure that variances are not required. If so, then these variances need to be granted with this map. 2. Plans shall show how property lines are tied. 3. Agreement and bonding shall be submitted by the developer for completion of all off -site improvements, including but limited to driveway, storm drain lines, sewer lines, water lines, removal of existing abandoned water tank. 4. Plans shall show the existing abandoned water line from water tank towards Adeline Drive. Indicate that this water line will be removed. 5. Applicant shall provide documentation from County for requirements to have access to Vista bane from one of the proposed lots. b. Show all existing and proposed utilities lines. 7. Show all existing and proposed easements rights. 8. Recent preliminary title report shall be submitted. 9. Soils report for the proposed grading work shall be submitted. All grading work shall be done in accordance with the soils report. Received After (p.3 of 3) November 30, 2004 Denham LLC Page 2 Planning Department: 1. Provide grading plan (retaining walls if applicable). 2. The proposal will require environmental review, either an environmental impact report or negative declaration. Depending upon the conclusions of the studies required, additional studies may be required. 3. Provide drainage plan for both lots. 4. An arborist report will be required if there is extensive removal of trees on the property or any removal of protected trees. CShowbuilding envelope to demonstrate lot can be built on without variance, if hardship, -can apply for iance.__— TueRc No HAPh-5Ni� 6. Identify water supply pipe from top of Vista to Mercy property. Fire Department: 1. Any proposed structures shall be located that all portions of the building are within 150 feet from the street. County of San Mateo Panning and Building Department and Department of Public Works 1. Confirmation that the appropriate fire district, CDF/City of Burlingame, will have adequate access off of Vista Lane and Adeline Drive. 2. Department of Public Works would require complete drainage plan on Adeline Drive assuring San Mateo County that no increase in quantity would enter San Mateo County jurisdiction. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (650) 558- 7242. Sincere1, Vic r Vo g Ass tant gineer Cc: Daniel MacLeod, MacLeod and Associates Olivia Sun, San Mateo County Catherine Barber, Planner Doug Bell, Senior Civil Engineer U:\VICTOR\Projats\Private\2843Addine.wpd Iteyi1 2 a a,,d Z b COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION Ic + 13101 PC 1�i.0 i�' OF STAFF REPORT M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY ATTORNEY RECEIVED DATE: October 8, 2009 OCT 0 9 2009 TO: Chairperson Terrones and Planning Commissioners CITY OF BURLINGAME FROM: Gus Guinan, City Attorney PLANNING DEPT. RE: Question Regarding Variance Application Re:12 Vista Lane Question: On September 28, 2009, Denham LLC's (Mr. Alex Mortazavi) tentative and final parcel map and application for variance from the sixty (60) foot lot frontage at 12 Vista Lane came before the Planning Commission for study. Chairperson Terrones asked the Attorney's office to provide input on this question: whether the ability to subdivide a lot constitutes a "substantial property right" under the required findings of the variance ordinance. Answer: No, the ability to subdivide a lot is NOT a "substantial property right". Discussion: The City's variance ordinance, section 25.54.020 is similar to variance ordinances throughout the State. Under the ordinance, one of the findings that the Commission must make, based upon evidence presented at the public hearing on the variance application, is as follows: "(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 unnecessary hardship" No case that I found directly addressed the question of whether a subdivision of property constitutes a "substantial property right". By the ordinance's own wording, the property right must be a "substantial" right. Fundamentally, an owner's substantial property right would be that right to develop the property in roughly the same manner and under the same conditions as the neighboring properties. Further, Constitutional protections of property focus on protections against the physical and regulatory taking of private property by governmental agencies without due process and just compensation. Neither of those prohibitions is present in this situation. While the State and Federal Constitutions do provide for a person's right to own property, neither charter provides a "property right to subdivide". The Subdivision Map Act, the statutory scheme outlining the subdivision process, does not create a statutory "right to subdivide". In fact, the statutory scheme allows for local entities to enact their own subdivision ordinances which may impose additional restrictions and requirements on property owners desiring to subdivide their property. From a review of the cases which address variance issues in general and the finding of "preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right" in particular, it is clear that this finding centers on the panty between the property of the owner seeking a variance and the surrounding properties of other owners. If, due to unusual circumstances of topography, configuration, slope size or other characteristics, the applicant cannot develop his property in a roughly similar manner as the neighboring owners, the grant of a variance might be justified in order to "preserve a substantial property right". Simply put, a variance is a limited exception to the usual requirements of local zoning. When a city is confronted with development on an unusual piece of property, the variance procedure can lend some flexibility to the usual standards of the zoning ordinance. Approval of a variance allows the property owner "to use his property in a manner basically consistent with the established regulations with such minor variations as will place him in parity with other property owners in the same zone" (Longtin's California Land Use, 2nd edition). The grant of a variance must be based upon the special circumstances that differentiate the project site from its neighbors and upon the "unnecessary hardship" that would result from these circumstances if a variance were not approved. However, while the "preservation of a substantial property right" does NOT include the ability to subdivide the property, this fact alone is not determinative of the ultimate issue of whether or not the Commission should grant this variance in this specific instance. The Commission must review and consider the whole record of this specific application, including the staff report, witness testimony, documents and other evidence, to determine whether the presented evidence supports the findings necessary for the grant of the variance. This final determination is within the sound and reasoned discretion of the Commission. Hopefully this information is helpful. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes October 26, 2009 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Item 1 (12 Vista Lane) was pulled from the Consent Calendar and moved to the Regular Action Calendar since action on the item requires a roll call vote of the Commissioners. There were no other Consent Calendar items. Vill. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 12 VISTA LANE — ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S OCTOBER 13, 2009 ACTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 VISTA LANE; STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Community Development Director Meeker and City Attorney Guinan noted that the Commission is simply considering adoption of a resolution that memorializes its October 13, 2009 actions approving the requests for a Variance and Parcel Map. A public hearing is not required, nor has the matter been noticed as a public hearing; in fact, consideration of the resolution is not an opportunity for Commissioners to change positions regarding the actions, add additional findings, or solicit additional public comment; the Commission should only review the findings in the resolution and confirm the accuracy of the findings in support of the Commission's majority action. Reconsideration of the matter would require a new, duly noticed public hearing. Commissioner A uran moved to adopt the resolution memorializing the Planning Commission's October 13, 2009 action recommending to the City Council, approval of a Variance for lot frontage and Tentative and Final Parcel Map approval for property located at 12 Vista Lane. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a roll call vote on the motion to adopt the resolution. The motion passed 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. At the request of Mark Bender, 520 South El Camino Real, San Mateo; representing owners of 16 Vista Lane; the following public comments were accepted "from the floor" regarding the resolution memorializing the Commission's action regarding 12 Vista Lane: ■ The findings do not provide an adequate explanation of the substantial property right demonstrated to support approval of the Variance from lot frontage requirements associated with the Parcel Map. ■ The findings do not adequately demonstrate the existence of a hardship to warrant approval of the requested Variance; in fact, several Commissioners indicated that the applicant had created a self- imposed hardship. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 2. 12 VISTA LANE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL 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 09-04 — PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG b. VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE FOR CREATION OF TWO LOTS WITH 55-FOOT WIDE STREET FRONTAGE WHERE 60 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE IS REQUIRED — STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 13, 2009, with attachments, including memorandum from the City Attorney providing guidance regarding required variance findings that verifies that approval of the proposed property division is not a fundamental property right. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Two (2) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi, 851 Burlway Road, represented the applicant. ■ Asked that his property be treated in a manner similar to the rest of the neighborhood (located in unincorporated San Mateo County). • Four properties within the surrounding area fall below Burlingame's lot frontage of 55-feet. ■ Willing to create a widened area that will provide parking on the property adjacent to Vista Lane. ■ If a cul-de-sac is provide, it would require the homes to be placed further back on the lots, resulting in greater impacts upon views. • Having a fully landscaped area at the front of the lots will provide a more pleasing appearance. ■ The two homes will provide a landscaped area and view corridor of 12-feet between the two structures. ■ Approval of the Variance is not a grant of special privilege; only wish to be treated in the same manner as adjacent properties. ■ The City would require curb, gutter and sidewalk if the cul-de-sac is provided; no other properties in the area are subject to that requirement. ■ Showed photographs of encroachments into Vista Lane by adjacent property owners. • Landscaping also encroaches into the County controlled street. ■ New homes will be subject to design review by the Planning Commission. Commission comments: ■ How small are the new homes? (Mortazavi — 3,200 square feet.) ■ An alternative to the cul-de-sac or lot split is no lot split. (Mortazavi — will result in a larger home that does not belong in the area; would be necessary for economic reasons.) ■ Clarified that the property was subject to City requirements when it was purchased. (Mortazavi—the County rules are much different.) ■ Clarified that the City Engineer does not want the City to be responsible for a cul-de-sac, also that this approach would result in the homes being placed further back on the property, blocking views. (Mortazavi — confirmed this information.) ■ Is San Mateo County "ok" with widening the street? (Mortazavi — will require approval of an encroachment permit by San Mateo County.) 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 Public comments: Marc Bender (representing owners of 16 Vista Lane), 520 South El Camino Real, San Mateo; Frank Verducci, 11 Vista Lane: Yvonne McCarthy, 15 Vista Lane; Michelle Menendez, 23 Vista Lane; Eileen Thomas, 16 Vista Lane; ■ The property could be developed with one large home; there is no justification for building two homes. • All residents on Vista Lane will need to pass the homes if built; an additional lot will create gridlock in the area. • Cars will turn from a steep area of Hillside Drive onto Vista Lane and immediately come upon the two lots. ■ Views from 16 Vista Lane will be completely blocked by development on the lots. ■ In response to the comments regarding encroachments by the neighbors; indicated that these are existing conditions; the street has existed in its current state since 1988; the neighborhood is small and the street has limited drivability. ■ Noted that there is a large water tank on the property; what will happen to the tank? (Terrones — according to the application, the water tank will be filled to permit development in the area.) • Why to the houses need to be so close to the front of the lots? • Will additional paving be used for parking, or for the street? (Hurin — the Vista Lane right-of-way is 25-feet wide, but paving is not that wide.) ■ Children play in the street; there is also a concern about safety during construction; emergency services need to access across the street. • Would the fire hydrant on Vista lane be relocated? • The widened street will be used for parking. ■ The property owner purchased the property subject to the City's standards that only one home could be placed on the property in its current configuration. ■ The property owner has had other options in the past; he has tried to sell the property. Additional comments from applicant: ■ The County right-of-way for Vista Lane extends seven to nine feet past the existing paving. ■ The street will be widened in front of the two lots. • The existing encroachments by the neighbors cause the difficulties in navigating the street. ■ He is attempting to improve the existing bad situation. ■ Two homes will only generate two or three additional cars on the street. ■ Parties and construction activities create challenges for traversing the street. ■ He wrote a letter to the fire marshal regarding the presence of only one fire hydrant on Vista Lane; the property owner is willing to move it for everyone's safety. • Bender's statement is incorrect; there is a large Oak tree that blocks the entire view to the right from 16 Vista Lane; building a home further down the slope (rearward) on the lot(s) will exacerbate view impacts. ■ Regarding the water tank; the top will be collapsed and the tank filled prior to development. ■ Not asking for a special favor; this is the best alternative for the community. Additional Commission comments: ■ The neighbors would have the moral high ground if they hadn't encroached upon the right-of-way. G CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 ■ Does placement of the homes further back on the lot more greatly impact views? (Bender —would completely block views.) ■ Not currently considering the development of the lots, and view blockage; this will be considered through the design review process. ■ Is there a driveway configuration for the lots that will permit the residents on the lot to enter the street from a forward direction? (Mortazavi — a hammerhead arrangement could be designed into the projects.) ■ Who would be responsible for the cul-de-sac? (Guinan — depends upon how the subdivision would be designed; would be the City's responsibility if dedicated to the public. If the City chooses not to accept the dedication, it would not be responsible for maintenance.) ■ If a cul-de-sac were included as part of the subdivision, would the City be required to accept the conveyance? (Guinan — the City would not be required to accept the conveyance.) ■ Noted that the Public Works Director indicated that the cul-de-sac should be dedicated to San Mateo County. ■ The City of Burlingame does not need to be burdened with the responsibility for the cul-de-sac. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: • Could the City impose a greater parking requirement upon the property? (Hurin/Guinan/Meeker— Would need to see what is proposed. For purposes of approving a subdivision map, conditions related to other requirements cannot be imposed as conditions; they will automatically apply to the new subdivision. The City cannot be more restrictive than what the code requires.) ■ Can't support the subdivision without seeing the actual design of the homes; the City Attorney has indicated that approval of a subdivision is not a fundamental property right. • Could look at alternatives with a cul-de-sac design, or other design alternatives for development of the site. ■ The project is simply a Variance for a lot split, not design review; the hardship is being created by the applicant's desire to split the property; this is not really a hardship for purposes of granting the variance. ■ The other property owners are outside of the City's purview, the applicant's proposal must be considered based upon City standards; this condition is not a hardship. ■ The encroachments by the neighbors, as well, are outside of the City's purview. ■ Actually being asked to consider the lot split with a variance or a subdivision with a cul-de-sac; the subdivision of the property is not a substantial property right; there is no loss of property right by not permitting the lot split. ■ The lot split primarily results in an economic gain by the developer. ■ Safety is a concern when traversing Vista Lane; the lot split will add to a problem that already exists with the encroachments upon the street. ■ Disagrees with the other Commissioners; there is a distinctive hardship. Five or six of the lots in the area are already less than the City standard, which is an arbitrary standard. ■ Penalized for the narrowness of the road caused by the neighbors; the County should correct the problem. ■ The new homes would be near the entry to Hillside Drive; would not place much of a burden on Vista Lane; the additional lot would not double the traffic on the street, as represented by opponents. ■ The City could forgo curb and gutter, given the character of the area, and could also improve parking conditions on the properties as part of design review. ■ The lots are only 5% over the 10,000 square foot area that triggers the lot frontage requirement. ■ Concerned about the homes backing onto Vista Lane. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 ■ The alternative of a much larger home would not be as great a benefit as two smaller, more affordable homes; two smaller homes would fit in well, likely with lesser impacts. ■ Would like to see more information regarding the manner in which the property can be developed; how can conditions on the street be improved? ■ Given the complexity of the issues around parking and views, before making a decision regarding the lot division, there should be more information regarding the actual applications for development of the lots, prior to making a decision. ■ There is not enough information to make a proper decision. ■ The real issue is traffic; adding one or two houses will increase traffic; one large house will likely have as many vehicles as two smaller houses. ■ One large house will likely have a greater view impact than two. ■ This project cannot remedy the problems on Vista Lane; an impact upon the bulk of Vista Lane is minimal due to the location of the proposed lots near Hillside Drive. ■ Widening the street in the vicinity of the lots may be a good solution. ■ Not convinced that a cul-de-sac is a solution. • The property could be developed in the other direction, with the lots oriented the otherdirection; with a private driveway that could serve both homes. ■ Seeing more developed drawings could be helpful, but the lot split should be approved; the Commission can concentrate on the design when that information is submitted for consideration. ■ The Commission must consider the subdivision proposal that is before it; it cannot propose alternate configurations. ■ Presentation of a hardship is of critical importance when considering granting a variance. Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application for a Variance, by resolution: The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: • There is a hardship present, including the topography of the property, dimensions of otherlots, and the minimum lot frontage requirement is somewhat of an arbitrary standard that is not appropriate in this instance. ■ Cannot support the motion; hardship is created by applicant's desire to split the lot. ■ Nothing preventing the property owner from building a single home; could offer the community something to compensate forgranting of the variance; adding additional paving in front of the lots is not adequate compensation. ■ Not convinced that a cul-de-sac solution is appropriate. ■ The rules still apply, though they may be arbitrary. ■ In favor of the motion; when the designs for the homes are before the Commission, the Commission can more thoroughly address concerns regarding parking and traffic. Chair Terrones called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting). Commissioner Auran moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the Tentative and Final Parcel Map, subject to the following conditions: that the Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map shall be recorded at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office, and a copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works; and CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 10, 2009 memo and the City Arborist's September 3, 2009 memo shall be met. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica Discussion of motion: ■ Discussion ensued regarding options for addressing circulation on the properties to alleviate safety concerns on Vista Lane; this can be discussed with the design review application that will be required for the new residences. Chair Terrones called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:48 p.m. City Attorney Guinan noted that staff would prepare a resolution memorializing the Planning Commission's decision, including findings in support of the action, for consideration at the next regular meeting. Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself from participating on Item 3 (1462 Burlingame Avenue), due to a potential business relationship with the applicant. Commissioner Lindstrom recused himself from participating on Item 3 due to a business relationship with the property owner. They left the Council Chambers. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes September 28, 2009 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 12 VISTA LANE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL 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 09-04 — PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG b. 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 Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated September 28, 2009. Commission comments: • What are lots widths and frontages for the adjacent lots within the County? ■ Why was the 60-foot frontage requirement adopted? (Meeker — directed Commissioners to the explanation on page 3 of the staff report.) ■ Provide San Mateo County development standards that apply to the adjacent properties for comparison. ■ What will be the side -yard setback? Will a variance be requested? (Meeker — will comply with the City's requirement, unless a variance is requested.) ■ What is the relevance of the rendering provided, will more information be provided, or will a complete design be reviewed? ■ Why was the cul-de-sac design not supported by the City? The design would have allowed the lots to meet the minimum lot frontage requirement. ■ Requested an interpretation of whether or not the ability to split the lot represents a substantial property right that should be preserved. ■ Six letters have been submitted by the neighbors; provide exhibit showing the locations of these neighboring properties. ■ What will happen if the neighbors prefer an alternative arrangement for the properties? (Meeker —the property owner would need to process a revised request for a lot split.) This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at T:29 p.m. 2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Tel:(650) 558-7230 Fax:(650) 685-9310 December 11, 2006 Denham LLC & Hoya Int., LLC Attn: Alex Mortazavi 851 Burlway Road, Suite 710 Burlingame, CA 94010 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Re: Subdivision Map for 12 Vista Lane, PM 06-07 Dear Mr. Mortazavi, CORPORATION YARD Tel:(650) 558-7670 After reviewing the plan received on November 29, 2006, there are a few items that need to be addressed prior to processing the subdivision map. The project ingress and egress is directly on Vista Lane which is a county road. The City does not have a need for the right-of-way in front of your project. Dedication of right- of-way between private property and County road creates an island and is not acceptable to the City. The right-of-way should be dedicated to San Mateo County. The proposed cul-de-sac ingress and egress deviates from City standards. However, if the County accepts such an arrangement, the City will not have any objections. The dedication of right-of-way to the County in the City limits may require approval from Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Upon submitting the necessary documentation indicating County approval, staff will proceed to take the project to the Planning Commission. If you have any questions, please call Victor Voong at (650) 558-7242. Truly Yo , f SId a, P.E. Director of Public Works Cc: Jim Nantell (City Manager), George Bagdon (Director of Public Works), Larry Anderson (City Attorney), Meg Monroe (City Planner), Senior Civil Engineers, Victor Voong (Assistant Engineer) U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\12VistLWO PARCEL 3 O '5 294 (D. 14 z� -.L- .0 A.-W- Ll . In, . ui EXHIBIT "A" 11.2 +�. Lsscssoar uAP couvrr a� sAv wrto a /F BURLINGAM£ HILLS AV J RSAI /6/PJ-p5 n rev TAX CODE AREA_. _ 27- S _ e• OF O �8 \ I v�� n1Rca P I C092 091 �o �• � rl ,� � I // �R I- /0 I _ + 1n l'/[n� YnI�� .1L vw.V } ( PARCEL t ' ,.+^'.� "1r.,W I^ 9 �I - I r I 1 L r AMR,tar µEfoo M� \ \¢ // 0 of a ++a .//n 0 I I � � I O • I 1 O� \ .ou as war ;f if ,rw .Ni rl a w�c 1ru wn `,f V •r» �' ,+r. �.1' leaf // 1 .f fn f'10 - NH NM 1R- � 7 s PARCEL ^ a r 13 0. 7 x 6v� BK 27 /0 x I /e g ^ O 1 I M P9 /5 0 r.. O `t 91I art' � o �roo 093 Nnf�w, i f pio PARCEL x e /7 ] a Pr r. f♦IL� ' 4 LAN hh ✓ E 2/ 3ti f. BK-27O n re P9• fll $0 �,;• 1e 11.3 r BK--297 // PARCEL MAP VOL 61/68-69 PARCEL MAP VOL 5140 Assrs"s JUP corwrr ov sew A.ATEO uur BURL/NGAALE SCHOOL D/STR/Cr A BURLINGAM£ HILLS NO.2 RSM MIAI-19 ,,.,f_„ CHAPTER 20. "S" DISTRICTS (COMBINING DISTRICTS) SECTION 6300. REGULATIONS FOR "S" DISTRICTS. In any District with which is combined any "S" District, the following regulations as specified for the respective "S" Districts shall apply: District Minimum Building Site TABLE Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (Sq. Ft.) I Minimum Yards Required Maximum Height Permitted Maximum Coverage Permitted (%) Average Width Ft. Minimum Area Ft. Front Ft. Side Ft. Rear Ft. Stories Ft. S-1 50 5,000 500 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-2 50 5,000 1,000 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-3 50 5,000 1,250 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-4 50 5,000 1.650 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-5 50 5,000 2.500 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-6 50 5,000 3,500 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-7 50 5,000 5,000 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-8 50 7,500 7,500 20 5 20 3 36 40 S-9 50 10,000 10,000 20 10 20 3 36 30 S 10 75 20,000 20,000 20 10 20 3 36 25 S- 11 100 1 — 5 ac.1 1 — 5 ac.1 50 20 20 3 36 15 S-12 175 2 1/2 — 5 ac.1 2112 — 5 ac.1 50 20 20 3 36 10 S-13 250 5 ac.1 5 ac.1 50 20 20 3 36 10 S-17 -2 _2 -2 -2 -2 -2 _2 -2 _2 'See Section 6300.1 for precise lot area requirements in S-11 and S-12 Districts. 2See Section 6300.2 for precise requirements in the S-17 District. Maximum coverage limitations shall apply to all structures except: (a) Structures in C, H, M, or P Districts in which there are no dwelling facilities. (b) Greenhouses, lathhouses, or other structures used exclusively for flower growing. SECTION 6300.1. LOT SLOPE REGULATIONS. The following additional regulations for determining lot area requirements and lots per gross acre shall apply in S-11 and S-12 Districts. 20.1 EXHIBIT "C" LEGEND FINeighbors In Opposition Neighbors No Objection / In Support 30 6 295G «.s2 aE. l6 b zasz ry6o- z E39 zE25 -- 2s- lass ZS�O 2E52 2Fgy �Eqq HILLSIDE DR z -5 26u, _ of 2851 2o49 21, �Pq.. h V, h� rEq, 2g09 , � 2895 n69 ,16 1j2 12G .Qa 119 '25 111 12 Vista Lane 142 EXHIBIT "D" 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 DENHAM, LLC. March 14, 2007 To: Ruben Hurin, project planner CITY OF BURLINGAME RECEIVED 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010-3997 MAR 16 2007 RE: 12 Vista Lane Subdivision CITY OF BURLINGAME Response to Planning Commissioners' inquiries PLANNING DEPT. Dear Mr. Hurin, 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 RECEIVED MAR 1 6 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, I I- ------ ------ --- - $ 1 1 I I S I I I I= -r-t,,� —=-------------: 395.87' �g.5 . 1 A.P.N. 027-093-090 LANDS OF LABRIE NT OWNER AND SL A.P.N. 027-093-110 g7'�t4 ZONING: R-1 2 .M x a�A ( UTILITIES: ,m Q GAS: PG h E A I ELECTRIC: PG h E SEWER: CITY OF BUR 8V TELEPHONE: SBC " Z A.P.N. 027-091-090 CABLE TV: cOMCAST FIRE R G 5 m LANDS OF CHRISMAN PROTECTION: Cl WATER: CITY OF BUR 0 o RO LAND SURVEY( s?oQ� u1"111 O?=t'P �'ar.��'izY"El AND CIVIL ENG \ \ SAM Mvl fE � ll"" ASSOCI I" \ �S-11' e>�d ER 965 CENTER STREET 965 CENTER SAN CARLOS , CA. 91 TEL(650)593-8580 A \ LIMrT LINE 1 = 36 6'00• R 12 .00' L - 79.49' A.P.N.027-091-080 ILANDS OF GAUL T §49r56'00•E ' �C;I�( LIMjr LINE 28.38 1 z \ I S. 97 , , A P.N. 027-091-070 ,1 = e8>t2�21; LANDS OF LUCERO 225.00 JI A I OR1 ORATEED Zt pll0F6SpN,q� LAND A CIVIL J No. 5304 x No. 35048 • + r RJF OF CAUa 'rf OF CALF GRAPHIC SCALE ( a 7i1 1 `No-' 0eswronaN - VESTING ENTATIVL PAF PRELIMINARY GRADING J DR VISTA LANE A.P.N. 027-093-111 CITY OF BURUNGAME SAN MATEO COON PREPARED FOR: DENHAM LLC MAc LEOD AND ASSC CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND 965 CENTER STREET. SAN CARLOS CA -- BT: AAP SCAT£ L- 21' CES M 9T: WC OAiE: 0.]/29/OS a�cKm fir. ocM rsvo. I MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ. MARL D. BENDER, ESQ. JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. MICHAEL B. ALLEN LAW GROUP, INC. September 25, 2009 THE WESTLAKE BUILDING 520 S. EL CAMINO REAL; SUITE 840 SiAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 TEL: (650) 347-5000 FA\: (650) 340-6350 RECEIVED Via E-Mail (hurin&urlingame.oWd and U.S. Mail S E P 2 5' 2009 Ruben Hurin Planning Commission CITY OF BURLINGAME City of Burlingame PLANNING DEPT. 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Hurin: In my letter to the Planning Commission on March 30, 2007, I noted the serious traffic and safety implications on Vista Lane and Hillside Drive associated with the proposed development of two (2) single family homes at 12 Vista Lane if the lot is subdivided. The residents of each home would typically have at least two vehicles. So, subdivision of the lot would ultimately result in a minimum of four (4) vehicles entering and exiting this area on a daily basis, instead of two. The proposed driveway for the subdivided lot would be directly across the street from the garage entrance to 2784 Hillside Drive. Vista Lane is a very narrow street with a steep downhill grade. The only entry onto Vista Lane involves a sharp turn from Hillside Drive. Vista Lane is essentially a one -lane road, given the size of average vehicles driven by residents in this area. The paved area on Vista Lane in front of the subject property is 157 inches wide. An average minivan is 71 inches wide. I have enclosed the photograph of Vista Lane that I have previously submitted, on which I have marked the approximate width of a minivan near the proposed entrance to the subject property. Since there is inadequate space for cross -traffic in this area, drivers on Vista Lane are already forced to maneuver around each other in a difficult manner with limited visibility due to the grade of the street. Ruben Hurin Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA September 25, 2009 Page 2 The addition of the two (2) extra vehicles associated with allowing the proposed subdivision would have drastic safety implications, given the already unsafe nature of Vista Lane. Approval of Denham, LLC's variance application would create significant potential liability for the City of Burlingame, since this would greatly increase the risk of accidents and personal injuries in this area. You are on notice of these safety concerns since they have been raised in opposition to Denham's application for a variance to allow the proposed subdivision. In the unfortunate event that an accident occurs in this area due to the increase in traffic associated with approval of the application, the victims would likely seek compensation from City of Burlingame. The Planning Commission should consider these risks when deciding whether to approve the proposed variance. Even beyond these liability concerns, the safety of all residents on Vista Lane must be seriously taken into account. Since Vista Lane is a cul-de-sac, residents must drive in this unsafe area whenever they enter or exit their homes. Very truly yours, MICHAEL B. ALLEN LAW GROUP, INC. MARC D. BENDER marc@mballenlaw.com Enclosure cc: Art and Eileen Thomas (w/ enclosure) u�l 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 Commission PLANNING DEPT. 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 response to o objections to this project. Sincerely, Frank and Monica Verducci MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ. MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. MICHAEL B. All N 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 RECEIVED cc: Larry Anderson (w/ enclosure) APR 0 4 2007 Art and Eileen Thomas (w/ enclosure) Denham, LLC (w/ enclosure) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 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®mballenlaw.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 RECEIVED 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 Enclosures RECEIVED cc: Larry Anderson (w/ enclosures) Art and Eileen Thomas (w/ enclosures) Q P R ©� Z00% Denham, LLC (w/ enclosures) Steve Schefsky (w/ enclosures) Niall McCarthy (w/ enclosures) CITY OF BURLINGAME Jerry Warren (w/ enclosures) PLANNING DEPT. r - � �j / P �i � � / / i� �• � `�'1 � j ]i4 i`,, � i ti�ti. f.. _.. r� I ��+ 'w� i� _ �yp.:`'� - 71,�i r �� • _�, a� �k. '''� _ ..� L - - �� _ •� - - � ` �_ j: . y.A l ` RECEIVED APR - 2 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME L� PLANNING DEPT. a, 7 ,e,Lu ad fj A _ I l RECEIVED 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 David Cauchi City of Burlingame Planning Con**d 8 2007 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 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: p �Iomeom • ddress: a, ignatur, Homeowner: K—Address: Signature: LH,v�a caa� 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: BURIaINGAME 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 ternns 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. Address Somc_ Sohn Date zoo ln zccszvcoss xva v5:90 Loozioeiso RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 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 V Address R) OA "n- At�LAQ) (A�VOW Date (� RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2007 TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMIVIISSION 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 fdJWN Address JV r�dl Lam{ Ghr��ib Date `� � �a� .w i m i T aaool Mali - biscetto@sbeglobal.riet http_ US.t78 i 7 AT& i Yahaor 1-w aw moot MAIL SearCh-j Web Sr Welcome, biscritoo bcyipye,,, Mall Name 7UtAr7a SI r* ou My Accra nt Mail ` Addiasaes — Calendar - Notepad — Mali for Moblie -Mail Uatrr dea -O Search Mal Search the W Check Nil# Comtaosa !—`— Check Ather Mail [Edit] mail.tiveswitch._, Fo;ders [Add - Edit] Inbox Draft Sent Bulk(1) [Emrfir] Trash I&nptrl MY Fotders [Hide] 946 howard AOL_Mail al and archdtoses aiioto baseball basketball gals boyd Caulfield crescent -chetc... debbie sharp granma hillside project Ion johnson tunardi ansc sports morn for auntie ann pauls private pictures poker party putterman san raymundo school South City prop_ It miss tennis travel yerby Search Shortcuts My Photos View Attachment [EI ck t, p zQ,nal Mcssaoe - gntahz lreat7 V T5oI D F IN' File name: Vista_Lane_supporters_doc I File Save to Yahoo] Briefcase - Download F type: application/ms%vord Need He)p? TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COFAMiSslON I am a property owner in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed T Burlingame Planning Commission vrll vonduct a public hearing to consider a proposed t subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the proposed Subdivision, K 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 a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the subdivision nor to the alternatives and would r . chat thi tatement be included in the public record of the Commiss' rig eduled rii 9, 2007. # Name i Address Date / 4 27 -- � r T RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I ! of 2 4/512 _ , :02 PM TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED 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 Ii YX q Address 4;� tS I �� Vb V" ;- D17 ` Date 3 KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, AIA ARCHITECT uC C 17667 205 PARK RD., SUITE 207, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH. (650) W-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. I'%Spl'':( fully yours, Kamran Ehsanipour Property owner E-mail: kamran@ehsanipour.com Website: w _ehsanipour.com .ARCHITECTURE .PLANNING •ENGINEERING • INTERIOR DESIGN •CONSTRUCTION MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ. MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN & BENDER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THE WESTLAKE BUILDING 520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840 SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 marc®mballenlaw.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: 'ILL: (650) 347-5000 Fax: (650) 340-6350 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 RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 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 RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 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 94010-3"7 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. RECEIVED MAR 2 3 2007 cc: Art and Eileen Thomas CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. d. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR VACANCIES IN OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL.MEMBER 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 IMPROVEMENTS 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 I, 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 ommum Councilwoman Mahony thanked CA Andersyote Aware ss brochure. 12. no new business. 3. a. Commission Minu s: Library, May 2/changes Traffic, Safety and P ingJune 9, 2005; Planning, July 1 and July 25, 2005 b. Departme eports: Building, June 22005 c. Lette om Comcast concerning progr 4 Burlingame City Council August 1, 2005 Approved Minutes PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (415)696-7230 August 23, 2005 Denham LLC 85.1 Burlway Road #610 Burlingame, CA 94010 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 CORPORATION YARD . (415)696-7260 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 me' ting';.<` of August 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 cc:..RCE.or LLS- _Planning Department FILE: F:\WPTMM\MISC\TENfATIV.PM P.E. Agenda • Item # Meeting B� INGAME STAFF REPORT Date: _8101/05 SUBMITTED BY \ 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. 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 shown on the map BACKGROUND: At their meeting of July 11, 2005, 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 map 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 )ouglastell Senior Civil Engineer ;AA Public Works DirectorylStaff Reports104-04.doc P.C.01-11-09 Mte-h"q ITEM # d 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: R-1 Existing Lot Size: 43,251 + Square Feet Proposed Lot Size: Parcel A = 22,315 + Square Feet Street Frontage = 50 Feet Parcel B = 20,936 + Square Feet Street Frontage = 50 Feet Required Lot Size: 10,000 Square Feet Required Street Frontage: 50 Linear Feet Back rg_ound: 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 comers 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 9 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\03-1O.mmo Page 2 of 2 /5 /4 /3 0 9 uS I.d 7-W i \ 37.9q 11 io Vm 05�42- R. 25 S49 ?•a 1 R,225 /3 �••.\ R:75 /2 • T Lt N � m 1 C O I o97.43 •3T2 O f R:175' S49sc F 41-64' 53.G2' R:125' ` B,. I `?s /p L' 90 m N►� I� ] Ni • �� o � o ��`.`�1�4.2b' �. A5.91' 20 �22' E016' 48'i2.79' d7 569'94' E DR. 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 #: (%2- !• J �> ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 J:SZ& L AAh 0 Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLICANT project contact person ❑ PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents Name: D E.�J 4^ M L-11 Address: City/State/Zip: 71J KL I,A14 &AI a L-,/& `7[.1010 Phone:/oS0� Ci79..t��% Fax: ((v�'a !--79 — d �vFFnM �[G E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Address: C_ City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax: Name:,•1� rnl� Address: �t" �s'rF_ City/State/Zip: / ALA Ln g (/� . 24{ 9) 7a Phone: s12 r 9 g C$ 7 Fax: ��i * Burlingame Business License #: 1 `i'3-7,' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 7r16D11/1 S VA / AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: 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: Vfiq to I am aware of the proposed ap a ion and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: 8'10'01 * 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:\Handouts\PC Application 2008-B.handout This Space for CDD Staff Use Only Project Description: APP�:�A-H0 Jbr T�,,�-icei�� Ic�ru.( Maea^� �%OLrand 4 r L,� F,-o n ` A sL 41- - Clr ca'h o— o -C I L.J o Lc, Key: Abbreviation Term CUP Conditional Use Permit DHE Declining Height Envelope DSR Design Review E Existing N New SFD Single Family Dwellin SP Special Permit ?009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org /ED CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION ;._INGAME ','G DEPT. 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. SSE A-rTAG4EP 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? HandoutsWariance Application.2007 a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? 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. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on -site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? 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. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? 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. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. Handouts\Variance Application.2007 RECEIVED `U', 1 0 2009 A. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable tdlr 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 fmger 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 fronts 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 2,3OO 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 necessary for 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 aesthetics, mass, bulk, 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. I 027-0 5=920 I A.P.M, G27-0G3=9G ®�aA� I �AH®��. O�abAm n r FOUND 3 C IR J ' •q? e Li 77 PLUG TACK: FOUN 3 4' IRON 9,�eM1 L / F o "4$ PLUG AND T nc a CIrY/COON Y 9p c -y9 3304 AIMNG WALL y �}\ O� o° A' $ 3456'DO• W M1� 9M1 CHAINUNK ENCE �, •tea ,`• PORARY J� 71p 208 ppe 2p4 88.00' 8200' y -- -- --- — -- -- -- — CI C P OF FlRE °+PB— — 8.01 (ASSUM I ?1T 12.7 ' EX 5' WIDE Z l g • — ` . i N g�i�' ~�\ 2 PER g PM IB Q I s 10 GARAGE I\°O —59'"2- o�MOTE TED TREE I-♦ ^p�a ?� PRO 04'03'25•z1z�DRAIN CITY AR$ORIST _ AR 1 3 1 -?P I i� j09.5 4F 10,0( �1 I gg R=2r ROPO D FIRE TRUCK R P SLOT .� 247'28" RNARO D . POS IB E HOUSE EW TUNE ?,°�� 2p� 1 F O P,iINT "iEn4nLSI STORM I 1 STR BE DEDICATED 216.05 �614 DRAIN \ TO CIT FOR PUBLIC USEsx r FL 9 /1 PROP NSEC 218-95 ` S 3456'00' W 52.42' sA\ I a` 0' a3 oa s 0FL I �3� aN — sal •� W ° � Q j/ d-12348'10- 9I 0 U O 76.65 S , PIPE WITH PLASTIC ENC 'P p2 0 Q - l5 930A"D TACK 176. — 0. 6 `� + 4, S86'22'00'E ,'4� SbBY R 0 0 TUNE x � I zoo \ x P O O E m + 0, s E26 3 ± S.HE TO \ 70 N LOT VED I r1 1 A c I S �� I ,0 p e 4 Q �8 ' F L - 79.49' m • W I � I e;'o - I • BEN SDE OR �E - p w E- GARAGE / I o R 500' N w 213.9 /FF--2=I ti L= 3.73 ti� ape EW 4' 4�oOWER I a I I �= 51'S5- g 4 1 ry ITER 3g o 60 S49'56'00-E ( A E c¢+2 2�0 206 • op" CITY F I A �. — — � � 26.38'� 1 — — — — — — SS OUND 3 - IRON x �T� a RETAINING WALL N 345C00- E ° $' 203 Ys SS LUG WITHAND TA J'`''8'44'S9- GTY/CC%UII(T LMIIT LNI� +�— PIP TH1A571 176-0 OD12'21- 3.LS �i- I 3 0.3r PLUG AND TACK 5• P.SS.E 'a'� -LS 5304 EW 4- 'R AND _ LA AL P.SD.E L� �-a i i j FOUND BRASS TAG I UNDS OF FULL MANN WL%RREM s °UNINCORPORATED SAN MATEO COUNTY ELi CONCRETE DRIVEWAY YS 5304- AJ� 1 !� Z009 LEGEND: OWNER AND SUBDIVIDER = - - EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT DENHAM LLC & HOYA TNT., LLC CONC. SANITARY CONCRETE 851 CIl„ OF BURLINGAME CO SANITARY SEWER q-EANOUT 'p JOINT POLE CA. 94011WAY, SUITE 710 BURLINGAME p EB ELECTRIC BOX p$$E PRIVATE SANITARY TEL(650)579-4994 GRAPHIC SCALE TANNING DEPT. SEWER EASEMENT - SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PRIVATE STORM ZONING: R-1 G-8. GRADE BREAK PSDE DRAIN EASEMENT (IN"IT TW TOP OF WALL TW TOP OF WALL I tm6 . ID tL REV&ON DEscRiPnaH oRANN OIEOIm NtlR01tV TREE UTILITIES: NO BY BY BY °A>E 220 NEW CONTOUR � HYDRANT GAS: PG & E LAND INV. INVERT SELECTRIC, CIVESTING TENTATIVE & FINAL PARCEL MAP SEWER: EWER:CI & E Voo O �• o G CITY OF BURLINGAME ° ?� BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL "A- AND PARCEL 'S' PER TELEPHONE: AT & T PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 78, PAGES 78 & 79, RECORDS .OF YR,1 WATER METER `+.,' e"�., V o CABLE TV: COMCAST WV WATER VALVE FIRE PROTECTION: CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATEO COUNTY. Da WATER: CITY OF BURLINGAME No. 35 48 rt No. 04 —E— ELECTRIC LINE . f- wm P• tII 31-2007 '� CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA —G— GAS LINE tf OF'„CAL�r ��7f OqF PREPARED FOR: DENHAM LLC —SS— SANITARY SEWER LINE - LAND SURVEYOR 0930CINEW STORM DRAIN LINE AND CIVIL 'ENGINEER HAIL EODD %HD &SOCC O&JrCEa TG TOP OF GRATE MocLEOD AND ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING 965 CENTER STREET C.O. CLEANOUT SAN CARLOS , CA M70 965 CENTER STREET. SAN CARLOS CA 94070 (650) 593-8586 FF FINISH FLOOR TEL(650)593-8580 FL FLOW LINE ATTACHMENT "A" WITH NO VARIANCE °RAwN ay,A"P �zz VP , _ ,d DR ww° H0 omcHm BY: D DAZE 11/3e/Oa 1742—TENT W:\Pro7..t•\Pr•j-0I 1743-0I 174xn-Nr.IMo ONECKFD BY: DW A F D. SHEET, 1 OF 1 h . _lpr� + de F � r `' �,, �. 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 Background: 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 PARCEL J s t PARCEL t 1 PARCEL l rn.1°'.W ufrYrw Ot e a \ c1 r`ttr ,� I I a � 'b /7 I e 'I rns u _ I � �� II B I I {II I 20 � /e I _Bo J.K TAX CODE AREA 37 <• �� I I 09 /0 " I I or ft& LHn-�sn.rro.��tvAN,rp� s I I sI or a 8 e I I it 7 �yl 5 1' * Q\\. J !�, !4y' nl,s,' iG.u' TLTI I,II Ir soft fa.iG' f4)' frll mlr A_A' 2GGi f // ASSESSORS NAP COUNTY OF SAN AfATEo GL/F. P 55 OL n�V JI`'�Slp� PARCEL MAP VOL 62/ 68 - 69 PARCEL MAP VOL 5140 BURL/NGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT BURL/NGAME HILLS NO 2 RSM MZ18-/9 Project Comments Date: August 17, 2009 To: 0 City Engineer (650) 558-7230 0 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 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: azio ,0wo'Cf� C 57y- 733d Reviewed by: Date: q/3/D i 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 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 11�: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. Date: 3 (CY�d`� Reviewed by: � ; o ✓- Date: ftC-3 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: / 7) Date: 6,-22?/ / 7/� A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF 1) NEGATIVE DECLARATION, 2) A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 25.28.050(A)(3) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING SIXTY FOOT LOT FRONTAGE IN THE R-1 DISTRICT, AND 3) A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR SUBDIVISION OF A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE LOCATED AT 12 VISTA LANE (PARCEL A, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION — APN: 027 093 300) WHEREAS, on August 10, 2009, Denham LLC, owner of the property located at 12 Vista Lane, City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, California; submitted applications for approval of a Variance from section 25.28.050(a)(3) of the zoning ordinance, requiring a minimum lot frontage of sixty (60) feet and a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for said property, in order to divide the property, containing a land area of 21, 212 square feet, into two lots; one lot containing 10,537 square feet and the other lot containing 10,675 square feet, each lot having a frontage of 55-feet on Vista Lane; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame reviewed the requests as a "study item" at its regularly scheduled meeting of September 28, 2009; and at that time requested clarifications to the application (as outlined in the approved minutes of the September 28, 2009 Planning Commission), prior to scheduling the matter for a public hearing and action; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the property owner's requests for a Variance, and Tentative and Final Parcel Map approval; and at that time considered the analysis included in the staff report prepared for the matter, all oral and written testimony provided during the course of the public hearing and all documents and other evidence submitted regarding the matter; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2009, based upon the analysis included in the staff report, and all oral and written testimony submitted during the public hearing on the matter, the Planning Commission moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the requests on a vote of 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting); and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution memorializing its recommendation to approve the requests on a vote of 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting); and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the property owner's requests for a Negative Declaration, Variance, and Tentative the Final Parcel Map approval; and at that time considered the analysis included in the initial study, staff report prepared for the matter, all oral and written testimony provided during the course of the public hearing, and all documents and other evidence submitted regarding the matter; and Page 1 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution - Applications for a Negative Declaration, Variance for Lot Frontage, and for a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for property located at 12 Vista Lane — January 25, 2010 WHEREAS, based upon the analysis included in the initial study, staff report, and all oral and written testimony submitted during the public hearing on the matter, the Planning hereby makes the following findings regarding the request for a Negative Declaration, Variance from minimum lot frontage requirements, and for Tentative and Final Parcel Map approval: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Finding: A. Pursuant to Negative Declaration (ND-553-P), on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received in writing or at the public hearing, and the following supporting information there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment: that the creation of two lots will not subdivide an established community and displace any existing housing units or residents; that the project will not generate significant adverse effects on the water or air quality, increase noise levels substantially; that the project will not have any significant adverse impacts on the flora or fauna of the area or on traffic, land use, or public services and infrastructure; and the project will not significantly degrade the aesthetic quality of the area. Variance Findings: B. There are exceptional circumstances or extraordinary circumstances, or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. The subject property is an isolated "finger" of property under the jurisdiction of the City of Burlingame that projects into a neighborhood consisting of properties lying within an unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo. The surrounding properties are subject to development standards applicable only to properties lying within the unincorporated County area that are not applicable to the subject property. The Parcel Map results in lots that are similar in size, shape and orientation to other existing developed properties lying with the surrounding County jurisdiction. The City's zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot frontage of 60-feet for lots exceeding 10,000 square feet; the lots created by the Parcel Map exceed the 10,000 square foot threshold, and are consistent with existing development patterns in the vicinity. Additionally, the topography of the property, with a down slope from Vista Lane rearward, dictates a lot orientation as shown on the Parcel Map in order to ensure buildable home sites. C. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The total area of the property included in the Parcel Map is 21,212 square feet, and far exceeds the 10,000 square foot minimum lot area required for the area. The Parcel Map results in the creation of two lots of similar size, shape and configuration to surrounding properties within an unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, and subject to County regulation. Approval of the Parcel Map will provide the property owner with similar development rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Page 2 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution - Applications for a Negative Declaration, Variance for Lot Frontage, and for a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for property located at 12 Vista Lane — January 25, 2010 D. 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. Approval of the Parcel Map will result in lots of similar size, shape and configuration to other lots within the vicinity that are in the surrounding area, most of which are under the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo. The additional lot will not create significant additional traffic on Vista Lane and the property owner has indicated his intention to provide a wider paved area along the property to provide an improved path of travel in front of his properties. Additionally, the City of Burlingame's Design Review process will provide the opportunity to further evaluate vehicular ingress and egress on the resultant lots to further minimize any potential impacts upon traffic circulation in the neighborhood. Finally, the creation of two lots will result in two structures of less mass and bulk and less impact on neighboring properties. E. The use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties within the general vicinity. Approval of the Parcel Map results in two (2) lots that are similar in size, shape and configuration to other developed lots within the vicinity, most of which are under the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo and subject to less rigorous development standards. Development of the two (2) lots will result in a lesser structural mass upon the subject property since each lot will be developed independently with two free-standing structures subject to development standards applicable to each of the two (2) lots. Additionally, development of the lots will require Design Review approval by the City of Burlingame, prior to site development; this process will ensure that any potential impacts upon adjacent development can be minimized to the extent feasible. Parcel Map Findings: F. The Parcel Map was reviewed and recommended for approval by the City Engineer, based upon a memorandum prepared by the Public Works Department, dated September 10, 2009. G. The Parcel Map results in a lot configuration of each lot that is consistent with the existing pattern of lots within the surrounding neighborhood in which the property is situated. H. Approval of the Parcel Map will not create impediments to public safety access within the neighborhood in which the property is situated; the Parcel Map will result in the creation of one additional home site within an established residential neighborhood. I. Approval of development upon the lots created through approval of the Parcel Map must be reviewed separately through the City of Burlingame's Design Review process; an evaluation of development impacts, including site preparation, grading, drainage, utilities, and architectural compatibility will occur as part of that discretionary process. Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution - Applications for a Negative Declaration, Variance for Lot Frontage, and for a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for property located at 12 Vista Lane — January 25, 2010 J. The property is not subject to creek lot requirements set forth in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 26.08.075. K. The lots created by the Parcel Map are consistent with the policies of the Burlingame General Plan and implementing zoning regulations, which set forth policies and standards for the single-family development that will be permitted to occur upon the two lots. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that it recommends to the City Council, approval of: 1) a Negative Declaration, 2) a Variance from Section 25.28.050(a)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requiring sixty (60) foot lot frontage in the R-1 District, and 3) a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for subdivision of a parcel into two lots, on property situated within a Single -Family Residential (R-1) zone located at 12 Vista Lane (Parcel A, Block 4, Burlingame Hills No. 2 Subdivision — APN: 027 093 300), subject to the following conditions: that the Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map shall be recorded at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office, and a copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works; and 2. that the conditions of the city Engineer's September 10, 2009 memo and the City Arborist's September 3, 2009 memo shall be met. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution shall be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Adopted this 25th day of January, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: For the Burlingame Planning Commission: Richard Terrones, Chair Sandra Yie, Secretary Page 4 of 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME ` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �7'%','; Ohr1650 325 BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 g�• .P� 28 PH: (650) 558-7250 s FAX: (650) 696 - �0 'T www.burlingame.orgs�< d 54010 US POSTAGE Site: 12 VISTA LANE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Negative Declaration and Variance for lot frontage for creation of two lots with 55-foot wide street frontage where 60 feet of street frontage is required and 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, and at 12 VISTA LANE zoned R-1. APN 027-093-300 Mailed: January 15, 2010 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side)