COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

June 21, 2004

SET TIME:

10:00 a.m.

BOARD MEETING DATE:

July 6, 2004

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny certification of a Negative Declaration and require preparation of a focused EIR for a 4-lot subdivision of a 49,322 sq. ft. parcel, at 40 Bishop Lane, in the unincorporated West Menlo Park area of San Mateo County.

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to require the applicant fund the preparation of a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project.

PROPOSAL

The applicant, Ted Misselwitz, is seeking approval to subdivide a 49,322 sq. ft. parcel, located adjacent to San Francisquito Creek, into four residential parcels of 9,242 net sq. ft. (Parcel 1), 13,086 net sq. ft. (Parcel 2), 12,151 net sq. ft. (Parcel 3), and 9,389 net sq. ft. (Parcel 4). Access will be provided via a 170-foot long access easement with a turnaround at the end. The applicant has submitted a street name change application to name this easement “Bishop Oaks Court.” The applicant has also applied for a lot line adjustment with an adjacent property owner. The exchange of land is necessary to facilitate a radius entry onto the access easement.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

Based upon testimony presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission determined that there was uncertainty regarding whether the project may have significant, unmitigated impacts upon the biological resources on the site and within the adjacent San Francisquito Creek area. Additionally, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the long-term stability and rate of erosion of the creek banks. In light of the Commission’s concerns, considerable public controversy over the project, and disagreements among the applicant’s and the appellant’s biological consultants, the Commission voted 4-0 to not certify the proposed Negative Declaration. The Commission determined that an EIR should be prepared. The important issue at this stage is not whether such impacts are in fact significant, but whether a “fair argument” can be made that the project may have such impacts. The Planning Commission decided that such a “fair argument” could be made, and hence voted to require the applicant to prepare an EIR.

SUMMARY OF APPEAL

The applicant/appellant asserts that the Planning Commission based their decision primarily upon a letter from Patrick Kobernus of Thomas Reid & Associates (TRA). This letter was a critique of the biological report prepared by the applicant/appellant’s consultant. This critique letter was delivered to staff at the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting. The appellant’s argument is that they were not provided an opportunity to review this letter or rebut it before the Planning Commission. His assertion is that if the Commission had given him an opportunity, whether at that meeting or at a later meeting where his biologist could be in attendance, then the points raised in the critique could be resolved and a decision reached on this project.