20050426_m



COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:						April 11, 2005
BOARD MEETING DATE:						April 26, 2005
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:						10 days, within 300 ft.
VOTE REQUIRED:						Majority


TO:				Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:				Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:				Consideration of a Minor Subdivision and an after-the-fact Land Clearing and Tree Removal application, pursuant to Section 7010 of the San Mateo County Subdivision Regulations and State Subdivision Map Act, Section 8600 of the San Mateo County Land Grading and Land Clearing Regulations and Section 12,020 of the County Ordinance Code to subdivide an existing 36,957 sq. ft. parcel into two 18,478.5 sq. ft. parcels and remediate the land clearing and tree removal work done without permits, located at 869 Hillcrest Drive in the unincorporated Emerald Lake Hills area of San Mateo County. (Appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission denying the Minor Subdivision, and after-the-fact Land Clearing and after-the-fact Tree Removal application.)

				County File Numbers:	PLN 2004-00048 and PLN 2004-00132 (Fraone/Silvestri)

RECOMMENDATION

Grant the appeal and:

1.		Find the proposal consistent with the General Plan; and

2.		Approve the proposed minor subdivision, after-the-fact land clearing and tree removal permit, County File Numbers PLN 2004-00048 and PLN 2004-00132, by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: The proposed project keeps the commitment of “Responsive, Effective, and Collaborative Government.”

Goal: Number 20, which states: “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.” Although the Planning Commission supported the General Plan density compliance, after-the-fact land clearing and after-the-fact tree removal, the Commission did not support the flag lot configuration and requested the applicants to submit a revised parcel map that would eliminate the flag lot.

The Planning Commission’s deliberations further Commitment 9 and Goal 20 as the Commission carefully considered the proposed project and found the project complied with the General Plan. However, the Commission could not reach consensus on the flag lot configuration and voted 2 to 2 as they were considering further impacts of the project on the surrounding neighbors.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicants/appellants propose to subdivide one 36,957 sq. ft. parcel into two 18,478.5 sq. ft. parcels, as well as to legalize land clearing of the property and the removal of one significant tree. The existing single-family dwelling and accessory structures on the subject property will be demolished.

Planning Commission Action: Based on staff’s information and testimony presented at the January 26, 2005 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission voted 2 to 2 on the proposed project, resulting in a denial of the project.

Previous Planning Commission Public Hearings: The proposed project was presented before the Planning Commission on December 8, 2004 and January 26, 2005.

On December 8, 2004, the Planning Commission tentatively found the proposal in compliance with the General Plan, but some Commissioners did not support the flag lot configuration of the subdivision. The Commission requested that the applicants return with a redesign that would eliminate the flag lot configuration.

On January 26, 2005, the applicants/appellants provided their testimony in support of their original subdivision design and explained why they chose not to redesign the configuration as requested (Attachment I). They also submitted letters of support from neighbors (Attachment J). The applicants/appellants stated that the configuration is for the safety of their family, to enable them to safely enter and exit the property from Hillcrest Drive, and thus avoid speeding and heavy traffic on Oak Knoll Drive. The applicants also submitted diagrams of other existing flag lots (Attachment K) and existing dual access lots (Attachment L) in the immediate area to show that other parcels utilize the same concept and that they are not asking for any special privileges.

Prior to this second hearing, the applicants/appellants contacted the Department of Public Works and requested they complete a traffic study that would indicate the amount of traffic that occurs on Oak Knoll Drive. Department of Public Works conducted a traffic study from January 14, 2005 through and including January 20, 2005 (Attachment M). The applicants/appellants submitted this traffic study to the Planning Commission and staff on January 26, 2005, to serve as additional evidence to support their subdivision design and request for egress/ingress from Hillcrest Drive.

Commissioner Noble acknowledged the traffic safety concern on Oak Knoll Drive and made an inquiry to staff whether a stop sign could be installed as an alternative solution to enable the applicants to enter and exit their property from Oak Knoll Drive and thereby eliminate the proposed flag lot parcel configuration. Mr. Bentley, Department of Public Works, responded that the Department of Public Works would need to determine if a stop sign was warranted. (As indicated below, the Department of Public Works subsequently determined that a stop sign was not warranted.)

After hearing all the testimony, two Commissioners indicated that they did not support the flag lot design and voted to deny the proposal. As a result, the Planning Commission denied the project on a 2 to 2 split vote. (Commissioner Silver abstained due to a potential conflict of interest.)

Report Prepared By: Olivia Sun Boo, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1852

Applicants/Owners: Rich and Maria Silvestri and Frank and Kelly Fraone

Location: 869 Hillcrest, Redwood City

APN: 058-268-020

Parcel Size: 36,957 sq. ft.

Existing Zoning: RH/DR (Residential Hillside/Design Review)

General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (0.3 to 2.3 dwelling units per acre)

Existing Land Use: One-story single-family dwelling, detached two-car garage and two accessory structures

Water Supply: Redwood City Municipal Water District

Sewage Disposal: County Department of Public Works

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Zone C, area of minimal flooding, Community Panel No. 060311 0250 B, effective date: July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Exempt under provisions of Section 15315, Class 15 of the California Environmental Quality Act if the land division of four or less parcels in urbanized areas is found to be in conformance with the General Plan and zoning.

Setting: The subject property is improved with a one-story single-family dwelling, detached two-car garage and two accessory structures. The property is surrounded by one- and two-story single-family residences. The parcel contains native vegetation, mature trees and has an average slope of 12%.

Chronology Summary: For a detailed Chronology, see Attachment F.

DISCUSSION

Following are the appellants’ points of appeal, in bold, followed by staff’s analysis.

A.	KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

	1.		The project meets all County regulations. The decision was made arbitrarily, without a legal basis and absent of any findings within the Commission’s authority.

			The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information and testimony submitted and determined that the project complies with the General Plan and had no issue with the after-the-fact grading and tree removal permits. However, with regard to the subdivision design, the Planning Commission’s split vote was due to concerns over the subdivision’s flag lot design and options to have the subdivision take access separately off Oak Knoll Drive and Hillcrest Drive. Comments were these within the limits of the Planning Commission’s discretion.

			One Commissioner acknowledged safety concerns for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic on Oak Knoll Drive, including exploring the possibility of installing a stop sign to slow down traffic on Oak Knoll Drive, where it intersects with Parcel A. A stop sign to oncoming traffic may enable the applicants to more safely enter and exit their property and eliminate the need for the flag lot configuration. In response, the Department of Public Works conducted a brief traffic survey and confirmed that conditions on the portion of Oak Knoll Drive at the intersection with Hillcrest Drive do not meet the standards for placement of stop signs (see Attachment R).

			Staff has also reviewed and considered all the information and documents submitted and believes the project complies with the General Plan and the Subdivision Regulations. Staff also supports legalizing the after-the-fact land clearing and after-the-fact tree removal.

	2.		Commissioner Baumberger’s nay vote was based on irrelevant personal bias towards flag lots. There were no credible or relevant findings justifying the denial.

			As discussed, the Planning Commission’s decision was within their discretion. There is no evidence of irrelevant personal bias on the part of any Commissioner.

			See staff’s response, as noted above, under A.1 also.

	3.		Commissioner Noble’s nay vote was based on irrelevant potential for a stop sign to alleviate safety concerns. Department of Public Works has no plans for a stop sign at the Hillcrest Drive and Oak Knoll Drive intersection.

			As discussed, the Planning Commission’s decision was within their discretion. There is no evidence of an irrelevant potential safety concern(s) on the part of any Commissioner.

			In addition, see staff’s response, as noted above, under A.1.

	4.		Too much weight was given to the neighbor’s (Milo Medin) protest around privacy given that the proposal complies with all County regulations and standards.

			Mr. Medin does not believe the proposed subdivision complies with the General Plan density of the subject parcel and he does not support a driveway to Hillcrest Drive.

			Mr. Medin pointed to staff's analysis of the proposed subdivision density of 2.35 dwelling units per acre and stated that using basic mathematical calculations, 2.35 would be rounded up to 2.4, which exceeds the Low Density Residential General Plan (Low Density Residential 0.3 to 2.3 dwelling units per acre).

			Mr. Medin also does not support, nor see, the necessity for the flag lot configuration proposed on Parcel A. He believes the applicants/appellants have the ability to comply with a more traditional parcel design, eliminating the flag portion to Hillcrest Drive, and provide a driveway to Oak Knoll Drive for egress and ingress. Mr. Medin felt that a more traditional configuration, with a driveway to Oak Knoll Drive, is a better design.

			Staff has reviewed and considered all the information and documents submitted and believes the project complies with the General Plan and the Subdivision Regulations. Staff also supports legalizing the after-the-fact land clearing and after-the-fact tree removal.

			See also the response, as noted above, under A.1.

B.	COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS

	1.		Conformance with the General Plan

			The following General Plan Policy is applicable for this project.

			Chapter 8 - Urban Land Use. The calculated proposed density equates to 2.35 dwelling units per acre, midway between the site’s designation of Low Density Residential (0.3-2.3 dwelling units per acre) and Medium Low Density Residential (2.4-6.0 dwelling units per acre). Neither the General Plan, nor any internal procedural policies address densities that fall in between the two General Plan density categories. Since the project’s designation of 2.35 is exactly halfway between the two, but not over, staff has concluded, with concurrence by the Planning Commission, that the project is in substantial compliance with the lower General Plan designation.

			Staff recommend that the Board make the findings that the findings comply with the General Plan’s Low Density Residential designation.

	2.		Conformance with the Zoning Regulations

			The subject property is located in the Residential Hillside (RH) Zoning District. Section 6803 of the Zoning Regulations requires that proposed Parcels A and B comply with the RH District’s standards for a minimum building site width of 50 feet, and a minimum parcel size that is determined by the average slope of each of the respective parcels. Parcel A has an average 12% slope and Parcel B has an average 7% slope. Based on these average slopes, the minimum parcel size required for each is 12,000 sq. ft. The proposed parcels are each 18,478.5 sq. ft. and would thus comply with the residential hillside zoning requirements.

	Building Site Width Required/Proposed	Building Site Depth Required/Proposed	Building Site Area Required/Proposed
Parcel A	50 feet/60 feet	100 feet/216 feet	12,000 sq. ft./ 18,478.5 sq. ft.
Parcel B	50 feet/55 feet	100 feet/223 feet	12,000 sq. ft./ 18,478.5 sq. ft.

Any future development on Parcels A and B would be required to comply with applicable development standards of the RH/DR Zoning District. These are as follows:

Development Standards	Requirements
Maximum Lot Coverage	25%
Maximum Floor Area	30%/2,400 sq. ft. (whichever is greater)
Front Setback	20 feet
Side Setback	7.5 feet minimum on one side/ 20 feet combined total
Rear Setback	20 feet
Maximum Height	28 feet


	3.	Compliance with Subdivision Regulations

		This project has been processed in accordance with the County Subdivision Regulations and the State Subdivision Map Act and reviewed by various agencies for compliance with provisions of the County Subdivision Regulations. In addition, both parcels comply with the requirement for a minimum depth of 100 feet per Section 7020.2 of the Subdivision Regulations. Should the Board of Supervisors decide to approve this application, the following findings must be made:

		a.		In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, this map, together with the provisions for its design or improvement, is consistent with the San Mateo County General Plan.

				The Planning Commission reviewed the information presented by staff and testimony presented and made a determination that the density calculation conforms substantially to the General Plan land use designation for low density residential on a 4 to 0 vote. However, some Commissioners did not support the proposed design configuration for a flag lot.

				Staff believes that although the subdivision configuration is not the best design alternative, the project complies with the General Plan and the County’s Subdivision Map Regulations.

		b.		The site is suitable for the type of development and for the proposed density of development.

				Staff believes that the site is physically suitable for a two-lot single-family residential subdivision in that: (1) the proposed parcels conform to the minimum parcel size requirements of the RH/DR Zoning District; (2) a residence could be constructed on both Parcels A and B which would maintain a building envelope that conforms with the RH/DR development standards; (3) access could feasibly be provided to the proposed parcels; and (4) the site will be served by public connection to sewer and water services. In addition, as indicated above, the Planning Commission found the proposal conformed with the General Plan density.

		c.		The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitats.

				The Planning Commission determined that the following findings can be made with regard to the appellants’ proposal: (a) the site is located in an urban area surrounded by developed parcels, (b) utilities are available for the existing and proposed parcels, and (c) the area is not identified as a sensitive fish or wildlife habitat area on the County’s Fish and Game Natural Diversity Map.

				Staff believes that although the subdivision’s configuration is not the best design alternative, the proposed subdivision does meet the above findings.

		d.		The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

				Staff has reviewed the submitted documents and believes the subdivision will not conflict with any easements.

		e.		The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.

				Future development could be designed to make use of adaptive heating and cooling as the new parcel configurations allow for the maximization of solar access and orientation to the southwest.

		f.		The discharge waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the State Water Code.

				The Department of Public Works, which provides sewer service, has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has indicated that the project, as conditioned, would not violate the State Water Code.

		g.		The benefits of additional housing are greater than any negative effects the subdivision would have on fiscal and environmental resources.

				Approval of this project will allow the creation of one additional home site in the County. The property has an existing home and accessory structures, which will all be demolished. If the project is approved, two new homes will be built, one each for Parcel A and Parcel B. Staff believes no negative effects on fiscal or environmental resources have been identified and this project will be processed with an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

	4.	Compliance with Land Clearing Regulations

		Section 8602.2 of the Grading and Clearing Regulations requires a land clearing permit for the removal of vegetation when the land area to be cleared is 5,000 sq. ft. or greater.

		On February 26, 2004, a Stop Work Notice was issued on the property for on-site vegetation and tree removal activity without the required permits (County File Number SWN 2004-00012). Worked ceased and the applicants were requested to apply for an after-the-fact land clearing and after-the-fact tree removal permits to legalize the vegetation clearance and tree removal. On March 22, 2004, the applicants applied for both permits (County File Number PLN 2004-00132). Erosion control and winterization measures were required and implemented. The staff planner at the time conducted a site inspection on May 1, 2004, and verified obvious removal of vegetation from the site and that at least one tree was removed. Erosion control and winterization measures were confirmed in place, to the satisfaction of staff. Staff believes the damage was minimal and since that time, the disturbed area has been reseeded. Approval of this project will legalize the unpermitted land clearing work and complete the planning permit process. No additional work is required.

		The Planning Commission fully supported legalizing the after-the-fact land clearing. Staff requests the Board of Supervisors uphold the Commission’s decision and legalize the after-the-fact land clearing. Because the appellants responded in a timely manner to the stop work notice and staff’s time to investigate the activity was minimal, staff is recommending no investigation fees as part of the project’s conditions of approval.

	5.	Compliance with Significant Tree Removal Regulations

		The Significant Tree Removal Regulations require that for properties zoned RH/DR, that the removal of any significant tree (6” or greater in diameter) requires a tree removal permit. As previously stated, at least one tree was removed when the clearing occurred without the required permit. In addition, the Residential Hillside (RH) zoning regulations require that upon removal of any significant trees, replacement shall occur at a 3:1 ratio for every tree removed. Any future proposal for single-family dwellings on the subject property will undergo review by the Bayside Design Review Committee. At that time, a landscaping plan will be required and Parcel A will be required to include at least one replacement tree and Parcel B will be required to include at least two replacement trees in each respective landscaping plan. The size and species shall be determined by the Bayside Design Review Committee. Staff has included the tree replanting as Condition Number 3.

		The Planning Commission fully supported legalizing the after-the-fact tree removal. Staff requests the Board of Supervisors uphold the Commission’s decision to support and legalize the after-the-fact tree removal. Because the appellants responded in a timely manner to the stop work notice and staff’s time to investigate the activity was minimal, staff is recommending no investigation fees as part of the project’s conditions of approval.

	6.	In-Lieu Park Fees

		Section 7055.3 of the Subdivision Regulations require that, as a condition of approval of a tentative parcel map, the subdivider dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of dedication for the purpose of acquiring, developing, or rehabilitating County park and recreation facilities and/or assisting other providers of parks and recreation facilities in acquiring, developing or rehabilitating facilities that will serve the proposed subdivision. The section further defines the formula for calculating this fee. The fee for this subdivision is $21,373.23. A worksheet showing the computation methodology is included in Attachment I.

C.	REVIEW BY EMERALD LAKE HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

	Staff received original comments from the Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding the project on August 5, 2004. The HOA made the following recommendations: (1) recommend access for Parcel A from Oak Knoll to avoid creating a flag lot; a flag lot driveway impacts the privacy of Parcel B and Milo Medin, the adjacent neighbor, and also restricts the building envelope for Parcel B; and (2) reconfigure the lots in order to eliminate the long driveway and flag lot. The comments did not express disapproval of the project.

	Staff received an updated letter on March 6, 2005, from the Emerald Lake Hills Homeowners Board (see Attachment S), which states that the HOA Board met with the applicants on February 23, 2005, and now supports the “flag lot” configuration for safety reasons and would like to revise their original recommendation and comments. The HOA Board supports and recommends a shared driveway off Hillcrest Drive along with a legal easement to the Oak Knoll property owner (Parcel A). The HOA Board feels this compromised solution would provide safe access for both houses and avoid the subdivision with a “flag lot.”

	In reference to the HOA’s comments, staff would like to clarify that the applicants/appellants are not proposing a shared driveway but two independent driveways, situated side by side. A shared driveway design would require an access easement and could affect the development of a future single-family dwelling of each parcel to comply with the RH/DR Zoning Regulations in regard to lot coverage, setbacks, and floor area.

	The proposal of two independent driveways situated side by side will require the applicants/appellants to construct a fence, located on the common property line shared by Parcels A and B. The fence shall run the entire length of the shared property line. Staff has included this as Condition Number 7.

D.	ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

	Subdivisions are exempt from environmental review under provisions of Section 15315, Class 15, of the California Environmental Quality Act. Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial or industrial uses into four or fewer parcels. A Notice of Exemption will be filed and posted by this office after a final decision has been made at the public hearing.

E.	ALTERNATIVES

	1.	If your Board does not find the proposed subdivision conforms with the General Plan Land Use for Low Density Residential, then the proposed subdivision should be denied. Proposed Findings for Denial have been included as Attachment B.

	2.	While staff is recommending approval for the flag lot configuration, as this design conforms with the County’s Subdivision Regulations, from a design perspective, because this property fronts on two streets an alternative eliminating the flag pole is a better design. Should your Board prefer an alternative eliminating the flag pole configuration, then staff recommends the replacement of Condition Number 7 with the following two conditions of approval:

		a.	New Condition Number 7: The applicants shall submit a revised tentative map eliminating the flag pole configuration to Planning for a Density Certification review and approval prior to submitting a final map. The applicants shall pay applicable Density Certification fees in effect at the time of submittal of the revised tentative map.

		b.	New Condition Number 8: At the time of submittal for a final map, the applicants shall submit a revised design eliminating the flag pole configuration and conform with the revised tentative map required above in Condition Number 7.

F.	REVIEWING AGENCIES

	Department of Public Works
	Environmental Health Division
	Building Inspection Section
	California Department of Forestry
	Redwood City Municipal Water District
	Emerald Lake Hills Subdivision Committee

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS

A.	Recommended Findings and Conditions for Approval
B.	Proposed Findings for Denial
C.	General Location Map
D.	Applicants’/Appellants’ Letter of Appeal
E.	Tentative Subdivision Map
F.	Detailed Chronology
G.	Medium Low Density/Low Density Residential Map of Emerald Lake Hills
H.	1984 Slope Analysis
I.	Applicants’ Letter Explaining Reasons for Original Parcel Configuration (Dated January 20, 2005)
J.	Letters of Support
K.	Diagram Indicating Existing Flag Parcels
L.	Diagram Indicating Existing Dual Access Parcels
M.	Traffic Study Analysis Completed by Department of Public Work, Submitted by Applicants/Appellants at the January 26, 2005 Planning Commission Public Hearing (Study Dated January 14, 2005)
N.	Site Photos
O.	Parks In-Lieu Fee Worksheet
P.	Original Comments from the Emerald Lake Hills Homeowners Association Board (Dated August 5, 2004)
Q.	Planning Commission Decision Letter of Denial (Dated January 26, 2005)
R.	Letter from the Department of Public Works (Dated March 7, 2005)
S.	Revised Comments from the Emerald Lake Hills Homeowners Association Board (Dated March 6, 2005)

MR:OSB:fc/kcd – OSBP0264_WFU.DOC


Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Numbers: PLN 2004-00048 and				Board Meeting Date: April 26, 2005
PLN 2004-00132

Prepared By: Olivia Sun Boo				For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors


RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For Compliance with the General Plan, Find That:

1.	The proposed land division is in compliance with the low-density land use designation as stipulated in the General Plan.

For the Minor Subdivision, Find That:

2.		In accordance with Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, this map, together with the provisions for its design or improvement, has been determined to be substantially in compliance with the San Mateo County General Plan.

3.		The site is physically suitable for the type of residential development and for the proposed density of development.

4.		The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife.

5.		The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

6.		The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.

7.		The discharge waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the State Water Code.

8.		The benefits of additional housing are greater than any negative effects the subdivision would have on fiscal and environmental resources.

For the Environmental Review, Find That:

9.		This project is exempt from CEQA, Class 15, Section 15315, regarding the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial or industrial uses into four or fewer parcels.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.		This subdivision approval is valid for two years, during which time a final parcel map shall be filed. An extension to the time period, pursuant to Section 7013.5 of the County Subdivision Regulations, may be issued by the Planning Division upon written request and payment of any applicable extension fees if required.

2.		A building permit shall be applied for and obtained from the Building Inspection Section for any future construction on Parcels A and B after recording of the parcel map.

3.		As part of the Bayside Design Review process for each of the parcels, the applicants shall include and plant one tree on Parcel A and two trees on Parcel B as part of each parcel’s landscaping requirement.

4.		The applicants shall pay, to the San Mateo County Planning and Building Division, an amount of $21,373.23 for in-lieu park fees as required by County Subdivision Regulations Section 7055.3 prior to recordation of the final parcel map.

5.		During any future project grading or construction, the applicants shall, pursuant to Section 5022 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, minimize the transport and discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site into storm drain systems and water bodies by:

		a.	Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 15 and April 15.

		b.	Removing spoils promptly, and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials, when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled spoils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material.

		c.	Storing, handling, and disposing of construction materials and wastes so as to avoid their entry to the storm drain system or water body.

		d.	Avoiding cleaning, fueling or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff.

		e.	Limiting and timing application of pesticides and fertilizers to avoid polluting runoff.

6.		All new and relocated utilities for the proposed subdivision shall be installed underground from the nearest existing utility pole. No new poles shall be installed for this subdivision.

7.		Should the applicants proposed two independent driveways situated side by side that front on Hillcrest Drive, a fence shall be erected and located on the common property line between Parcels A and B. The fence shall run the full length of the shared property line.

Building Inspection Section

8.		The applicants shall apply for a demolition permit for the removal of the existing structures. All demolition permits must be finalized before recordation of the parcel map.

Department of Public Works

9.		Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicants will be required to provide payment of “roadway mitigation fees” based on the square footage (assessable space) of the new residences per Ordinance #3277. The applicants are advised that they are entitled to a credit towards these mitigation fees based on square footage involved with the demolition of the existing home. The applicants must provide appropriate documentation to receive this credit.

10.		The provision of San Mateo County Grading Ordinance shall govern all grading on and adjacent to this site. Unless exempted by the Grading Ordinance, the applicants may be required to apply for a grading permit upon completion of the County’s review of applicable development plans.

11.		No construction work within the County right-of-way shall begin until Public Works requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit, including review of applicable plans, have been met and an encroachment permit issued by the Department of Public Works.

12.		The applicants shall submit driveway “plans and profiles” to the Department of Public Works, showing the driveway access to each parcel (proposed garage slabs) complying with County standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20%) and to County standards for driveways (at the property line) being the same elevation as the center of the access roadway. The driveway plan shall also include and show specific provisions and details for handling both the existing and the proposed drainage.

13.		The applicants shall have prepared, by a registered civil engineer, a drainage analysis of the proposed subdivision and submit it to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage analysis shall consist of a written narrative and a plan. The flow of the stormwater onto, over, and off the property being subdivided shall be detailed on the plan and shall include adjacent lands as appropriate to clearly depict the pattern of flow. The analysis shall detail the measures necessary to certify adequate drainage. Recommended measures shall be designed and included in the improvement plans and submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.

14.		The applicants shall record documents, which address future maintenance responsibilities of any private drainage facilities, which may be constructed. Prior to recording these documents, they shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review.

15.		The applicants shall prepare a plan indicating the proposed method of sewering these properties. This plan should be included on improvement plans and submitted to the Department of Public Works for review.

16.		If applicable, the property owners shall dedicate sanitary sewer easements for any portion of the sewer main, which lies outside of existing public sanitary sewer easements.

17.		The applicants shall submit, to both the Department of Public Works and the Planning Division, written certification from the appropriate Water District stating that their requirements to provide water service connections to the proposed parcels of this subdivision have been met.

18.		Any potable water system work required by the appropriate district within the County right-of-way shall not be commenced until County requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit have been met. Plans for such work shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the permit.

19.		The applicants shall submit written certification from the appropriate energy and communication utilities to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Division stating that they will provide energy and communication services to the proposed parcels of this subdivision.

20.		If applicable, “as-built” plans of all construction required by these conditions shall be prepared and signed by the subdivider’s engineer upon completion of all work. The “as-built” plans shall be accompanied by a written certification from the engineer that all private facilities have been completed in conformance with the approved plans.

21.		The applicants shall submit a parcel map to the Department of Public Works for review and recording.

California Department of Forestry

22.		A fire flow of 500 gpm for 2 hours with a 20-psi residual operating pressure must be available as specified by additional project conditions to the project site.

23.		At the building phase of construction for a house on either of the two parcels, the required fire flow shall be available from a County Standard 6” Wet Barrel Fire Hydrant. The configuration of the hydrant shall have a minimum of one each 4 1/2” outlet and one each 2 1/2” outlet located not less than 250 feet from the building, measured by way of approved driveable access to the project sites.

24.		All new public water systems, extensions from a public water system or replacement of any main or line of an existing public water system shall have a minimum diameter of six inches (6”). If the pipes are not linked in grid or if individual legs are over 600 feet in length, then the minimum diameter shall be eight inches (8”).

25.		When receiving water service for fire protection (hydrants, fire sprinkler systems) from a public or municipal water purveyor, written certification from the water company that hydrants will be installed or the existing water system is capable of meeting the project conditions is required to be presented to the San Mateo County Fire Department for verification to show that required upgrades to the system will be installed and that existing fire flows will meet the project requirements.

26.		All dead end roadways or driveways in excess of 150 feet shall be terminated by a turnaround bulb of not less than 80 feet in diameter or with other provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus.

Redwood City Municipal Water District

27.		The applicants shall apply and pay for a new water service and meter to serve the lots, as needed, prior to an issuance of a building permit. The applicants shall contact Stephen Harrison, Project Engineer, City of Redwood City, at 650/780-7378, for meter fees and installation information.

28.		Sanitary sewer needs must be directed to the Oak Knoll Sewer District.

29.		Stormwater discharge from this site will fall onto private property. The applicants shall prepare a grading and drainage plan, which provides for retention of on-site drainage. Refer to techniques provided in the “Start at the Source” Guidance Manual, prepared by Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA).

30.		The on-site system should be designed for a 10-year storm.



Attachment B

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL

Permit File Numbers: PLN 2004-00048 and				Board Meeting Date: April 26, 2005
PLN 2004-00132

Prepared By: Olivia Sun Boo				For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors


PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL

For Compliance with the General Plan, Find That:

1.		The proposed land division is not in compliance with the low-density land use designation as stipulated in the General Plan.

For the Minor Subdivision, Find That:

2.		In accordance with Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, this map, together with the provisions for its design or improvement, has been determined to be inconsistent with the San Mateo County General Plan.

3.		The project site, with its design configuration, is not suitable for the proposed density of development.