Exceptions to Hillside Road Standards
The applicant is requesting an exception to the Road Standards to eliminate parking lanes.
Pursuant to BCC 7-13(e)(7)(a-c), exceptions to any of the hillside road standards may be granted by the administrative or legislative body approving the road improvement project upon recommendation of the city engineer based on consultation with the fire chief and appropriate engineering evaluations. The following Findings necessary to grant the exception are made in the affirmative as follows:
(a) Granting the exception will not unduly impair vehicular or pedestrian safety, or emergency access.
The Public Works Department and the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMCFD) has reviewed the project plans and has expressed no concerns regarding emergency access. As a condition, the SMCFD is requiring the proposed turnaround to be designated as “No Parking” and “rolled red curb” to provide for adequate emergency access. This finding is affirmed. (b) Granting the exception will result in a road improvement which is consistent with the San Juan Hills Area Plan and other city ordinances.
Granting of the exception will not result in a road improvement inconsistent with the San Juan Hills Area Plan and other city ordinances as established in the project Staff Report and Categorical Exemption (CE) Evaluation prepared for the project. This finding is affirmed. (c) Reducing the standard is necessary to avoid excessive grading or vegetation removal or to reduce the risk of erosion, flooding or slope failure.
Due to the existing unimproved right-of-way width fronting the site, there is not adequate space to construct a larger turnaround to accommodate parking lanes and a fire truck turnaround. The construction of a larger turnaround would require right-of way dedications from the adjacent privately owned properties, resulting in additional grading (cut and fill material), vegetation removal, construction of steep retaining walls, and additional project hardscape. This finding is affirmed.
The standards for an unimproved road segment terminating in a cul-de-sac are set forth in Belmont City Code Section (BCC) 7-13(4)(i). In general, the length of a cul-de-sac may not be longer than 800 feet (from the turnaround to the open street) with a turn-around radius of 32 feet. The project proposes an 870-foot-long cul-de-sac (from the turnaround to the open street) with a turnaround radius of 29.5 feet. Longer cul-de-sacs and smaller turnarounds may be permitted by the authority approving a road improvement upon the recommendation of the city engineer based on consultation with the fire chief and specific evaluation of the following:
(1) Availability of a through connection via an emergency road.
Response. Based on the geotechnical feasibility study prepared by the project engineer (Romig Engineers Inc.) and peer reviews by the City’s consulting geotechnical engineer, a through-road 125
extension is infeasible due to geotechnical issues and environmental conditions. The project proposes a road segment with a fire truck turnaround.
(2) Number of lots/houses/occupants to be served by the cul-de-sac.
Response. The existing cul-de-sac at the terminus of Monte Cresta Drive currently serves 17 homes along the 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive. The road extension would provide driveway access to the proposed development site, and potentially provide access to the adjacent lot west of the new road terminus.
(3) Type of construction of buildings (e.g., fire-retardant roofs and siding, interior sprinklers).
Response. Construction for the proposed dwelling will be conditioned to meet Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure) of the California Building Code and that the home construction includes an automatic fire sprinkler system. (4) Water pressure and availability of a secondary water main.
Response. The project site is in a residential neighborhood surrounded by existing single-family homes with existing water service. The project would install a water supply lateral that would connect to an existing water main in Monte Cresta Drive. Water pressure for the newly installed water lines will be tested during construction of the proposed single-family home. (5) Proximity to fire station and hydrant.
Response. Fire Station #15 is located approximately 0.8 miles from the project site and a fire hydrant is proposed at the turn-around / cul-de-sac.
(6) Street width.
Response. The project will meet the hillside road width standards related to the cross slopes with the granted exception to eliminate parking lanes.
San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMCFD) and Public Works Department (PWD) has reviewed the proposed turnaround design and determined that the length and turnaround design is appropriate with the stipulation that the turnaround includes “No Parking” and “red curb” to provide for adequate emergency access.
126
* * *
ADOPTED February 13, 2024 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
127
EXHIBIT “A”
PROJECT CONDITIONS – ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
GRADING PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, FLOOR AREA TRANSFER, AND CITY CODE EXCEPTION APPLICATION – KRAFT – MONTE CRESTA ROAD
I. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:
A. The following conditions shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit and/or site development permit or otherwise met prior to issuance of the first building permit and shall be completed and/or installed prior to a building final except as otherwise specified in the conditions:
Planning Division
1. The Applicant is hereby notified, as required by Government Code §66020, that the approved plans, the conditions of approval, and the adopted City fee schedule found at www.belmont.gov constitute written notice of the description of the dedications, reservations, amount of fees and other exactions related to the project. As of the date of project approval, the 90-day period has begun in which Developer may protest any dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions imposed by the City which the City has informed the Developers of as of the date of project approval of the adopted City fee schedule found at www.belmont.gov. Failure to file a protest in compliance with all of the requirements of Government Code §66020 will result in a legal bar to challenging the dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions.
2. Indemnification. The Applicant hereby agrees to and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, any City agencies and their respective elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, volunteers, and representatives (collectively, for the purposes of this condition, "City") from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs, and damages (whether in contract, tort, or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time, and property damage) and from any and all third party claims, demands, and actions in law or equity (including attorneys' fees and litigation expenses) directly or indirectly arising or alleged to have arisen out of or in any way related to: (a) the approval of the City Approvals; (b) any development or use of the Property under the City Approvals; and (c) any actions or inactions by the Land Owner or its contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction or improvement of the Property and the Project as defined in the development agreement; excepting to the extent arising from the intentional acts or willful misconduct of City, its elected and appointed representatives, officers, agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors.
128
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
This indemnification and hold harmless agreement apply to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this condition, regardless of whether or not City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications for the Property, but does not apply to damages and claims for damages caused by City with respect to public improvements and facilities after City has accepted maintenance responsibility for them.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owners shall file with the Director of Community Development, on forms provided by the City, an acknowledgment that they have read, understand and agree to these conditions of approval.
4. In accordance with the Belmont Zoning Ordinance, the permit(s) granted by this approval shall expire two (2) years from the date of approval, with said approval date indicated on the accompanying Attachment II (Road Improvement Plan Determination). Any request for extension of the expiration date shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance.
5. Except as modified by these conditions of approval, or as required by subsequent project review, the Building Permit Plans shall be consistent with the approved Planning Submittal Plans, date stamped 2/11/22 and inclusive of the architectural drawings (Sheets A.001 through A.301); Civil Engineering Plans (Sheets C.0.0 through C6.2), and Landscape Plans (Sheets L.1 through L.4).
6. Design Plans to be submitted for a Building Permit must be stamped and signed be a license architect.
7. An application for a reimbursement agreement may be submitted for the purpose of achieving the equitable sharing of new roadway and public utility extension costs among benefitting properties pursuant to an approved hillside road improvement plan. Such application for a reimbursement agreement must be submitted in accordance with Belmont City Code Section 7-13(12)(a-d).
8. Air Quality
a. Pursuant to GP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the applicant shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on an EPA-approved Tier 4 or newer engine. Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment where Tier 4 engines are not commercially available within 200 miles of the project site. The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPA- approved Tier 3 engine. ARB regulations will result in the percentage of Tier 4 engines increasing over the next several years.
129
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
b. Pursuant to GP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the applicant shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on renewable diesel (such as Diesel high performance renewable). Renewable diesel is currently commercially available in San Francisco Bay Area. c. Pursuant to GP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-3, the applicant shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive ROG emissions by ensuring that low-VOC coatings that have a VOC content of 10 grams/liter (g/L) or less are used during construction. The project applicant will submit evidence of the use of low-VOC coatings to BAAQMD prior to the start of construction.
d. Pursuant to GP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4, the applicant shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive dust by implementing BAAQMD’s basic control measures at all construction and staging areas. The following measures are based on BAAQMD’s current CEQA guidelines. i. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and un- paved access roads) will be watered two times per day. ii. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite will be covered.
iii. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
iv. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
v. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
vi. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and the name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the District will also be visible to ensure compliance.
e. The applicant must require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by implementing following measures during construction related activities:
i. Idling times must be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California 130
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
Code of Regulations). Clear signage must be provided for construction workers at all access points.
ii. All construction equipment must be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
9. Green House Gas
a) A minimum of 10% of the construction materials must be acquired (sourced) within 100 miles of the planning area. Documentation must be provided before the final building permit inspection.
b) A minimum of 65% of the construction waste generated by this project must be recycled or salvaged for use. Documentation must be provided before the final building permit inspection. Sample forms located at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ may be used to assist in documenting compliance.
c) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide documentation (i.e., construction contracts or signed agreements) demonstrating that all contractors and subcontractors agree to operate all offroad equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of work on renewable diesel (such as Diesel high performance renewable).
10. Biological Recourses
a. Nesting Birds
i. To minimize potential impacts on nesting raptors, the applicant shall either: 1) Avoid construction activities (i.e., tree pruning, tree removal, tree protection work, demolition, grading, and construction) during the active nesting season (between February 1, and August 31); or 2) Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and provide appropriate buffer zones, if construction has the potential to impact nesting birds.
ii. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist or ornithologist in order to ensure that no raptor nests will be disturbed during project implementation. This survey will be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for raptor nests. If an active raptor nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, will 131
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest.
b. Bats
i. A qualified biologist shall visually inspect trees to be removed for bat roosts within 7 days prior to their removal. The biologist will look for signs of bats including sightings of live or dead bats, bat calls or squeaking, the smell of bats, bat droppings, grease stains, or urine stains around openings in trees or structures, or flies around such openings. Trees with multiple hollows, crevices, forked branches, woodpecker holes or loose and flaking bark have the highest chance of occupation and shall be inspected the most carefully.
ii. If signs of bats are detected, CDFW should be contacted about how to proceed.
Echo-location surveys may be needed to verify the presence of bats, or an exclusion zone around the occupied tree may be recommended until bats leave the roost. Due to restrictions of the California Health Department, direct contact by workers with any bat is not allowed. The qualified bat biologist shall be contacted immediately if a bat roost is discovered during project construction. c. San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
i. Pre-Construction Survey. No more than thirty days prior to site disturbances (i.e., clearing, grubbing, grading or tree removal), a qualified biologist must survey for SFDW nests within and adjacent to the limits of these activities (impact area). All nests (active or inactive) must be mapped and flagged in the field. If no stick nests are detected, no further surveys are required, unless recommended by the biologist.
The biologist must submit the results of the survey to the Community Development Department, prior to any site disturbances.
ii. Construction Worker Education. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant must demonstrate that a qualified biologist has conducted worker environmental awareness training for all project construction personnel. The training must include a description of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (SFDW) and how to recognize and avoid SFDW stick houses. Workers must be instructed to remain within the designated work area at all times and to minimize the area of vegetation removal and ground disturbance to the minimum necessary for the project.
iii. Avoidance / Buffer Plan. Woodrat houses within 50 feet of the construction activities area must not be physically disturbed and must be protected with the maximum feasible dispersal buffer, as determined by a qualified biologist. The buffer areas must be clearly marked with flagging. The buffer areas must be left in a natural, vegetated state and no construction activities or staging of equipment may take place within the buffer areas. The applicant must demonstrate that the buffer areas are in place and inspected by a qualified biologist, prior to grading, grubbing or tree removal activities.
132
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
iv. Unexpected Woodrats. In the event that unexpected woodrat nests are encountered during construction activities, all construction activity in the area of the find shall be halted, and the Community Development Director shall be notified; a qualified biologist must examine the find and make appropriate recommendations for buffer installation (avoidance measures) or relocation of woodrat nests with approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The applicant must demonstrate that the buffer is in place or the woodrats have been properly relocated, prior to resuming activities in the area of the find.
v. Relocation Plan. If woodrat nests are to be relocated, then a woodrat relocation plan must be prepared and submitted to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for approval. Relocations must be performed under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist approved for this project by the CDFW.
11. Tree Protection
a. The applicant shall implement the Tree Protection Guidelines identified in the project Arborist Report (Kielty Arborist Services, Inc dated July 24, 2018); the project arborist must review the final building and grading plans and confirm in writing any changes to the design recommendations. The guidelines must be included on a plan sheet submitted with the building permit application.
b. Any approved grading, construction, demolition, or other work within the tree protection zone must be monitored by the project arborist. c. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Project Arborist.
d. If unplanned or unapproved tree injuries or tree removals occur during project construction, the applicant shall contact City Planning Staff. Additional permits may be required.
e. After completion of exterior construction work and before final building permit inspection, the applicant shall submit a final written report/letter from the Project Arborist. Said report/letter must provide an evaluation of the construction impacts to the subject tree’s health or structural stability and must identify any additional provisions that may be required to these address impacts. The applicant is responsible to implement these recommendations. A final report may be required on the effectiveness of the measures.
f. The project must include the following tree protection measures:
i. Tree Protection Zones - Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for tree protection zones should 133
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
be 6’ tall, metal chain link material supported by metal 2” diameter poles, pounded into the ground to a depth of no less than 2’. The location for the protective fencing should be as close to the dripline of desired trees as possible, still allowing room for construction to safely continue. No equipment or materials shall be stored or cleaned inside the protection zones. Areas outside protection zones, but still beneath the tree’s driplines, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4-6” of chipper chips. The spreading of chips will help to reduce compaction and improve soil structure. Tree protection fencing shall be up before the start of the project.
ii. Tree Protective Fencing – All tree protection fencing must be erected prior to any heavy machinery traffic or construction material arrival on site. The contractor/representative shall meet with the project arborist on site prior to commencement of the project to determine fencing locations. iii. Tree Roots - Any roots to be cut should be monitored and documented. Large roots or large masses of roots to be cut should be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist may recommend fertilizing or irrigation if root cutting is significant. Cut all roots clean with a saw or loppers. Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist, iv. Trenching - Trenching for irrigation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand when inside the dripline of a protected tree. Hand digging and the careful placement of pipes below or besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing trauma to the tree. All trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted to near its original level, as soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of time, will require the covering of all exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The trenches will also need to be covered with plywood to help protect the exposed roots.
v. Irrigation - Irrigation - Irrigation for the coast live oak trees will only be needed if their root zones are impacted. At the time of drilling the piers the site arborist shall set up an irrigation plan as part of the mitigation measures if needed although not likely.
12. Archeological Resources
a. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that construction crews have proper training for the discovery, handling and retention methods for paleontological, archeological and/or cultural resources found at the project site.
Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include:
chert, or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, dark, friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat- affected rock, or human burials.
Historic resources include: stone or adobe foundations or walls, structures and remains with square nails, and refuse deposits or bottle dumps. b. In the event that paleontological, archaeological, and/or cultural resources are encountered during construction activities, all construction activity in the area of the find shall be halted, and the Community Development Director shall be notified; an archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. A plan 134
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
for the mitigation of impacts to the resources will be prepared and submitted to the City of Belmont for approval. Additional CEQA review may be required depending upon the evaluation of the find.
13. Cultural Resources
a. If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location on a project site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
i. The San Mateo County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and ii. If the remains are of Native American origin:
• The descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or, • The Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant, or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission.
14. Noise
a. Noise Control Plan. The applicant must prepare and implement a noise control plan.
Said plan must incorporate the noise reduction measures identified in the standard construction noise COAs.
b. Noise Coordinator. Prior to construction activities, the project applicant or contactor shall designate a “Construction Noise Coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Construction Noise Coordinator shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The telephone number for the Construction Noise Coordinator must be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Prior to construction activities, the project applicant or contactor shall notify adjacent residents of the construction schedule in writing and provide them with the contact information of the Construction Noise Coordinator. c. Notice. The applicant shall notify property owners within 300 feet of the project site two weeks prior to the initiation of construction activities on site. A schedule of construction activities, contact phone number for the Noise Coordinator, and a copy of the noise control plan shall be included with this notice. 135
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
d. Grading & Building Noise. The applicant must ensure that the following preventative and monitoring measures are enforced during grading and building operations:
i. Limit construction activity to the hours listed in the City Noise Ordinance. (8:00 am to 5:00 pm on weekdays, 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, no construction activity on Sundays and holidays). Exceptions to these hours may be approved by the Building Official though the standard City process. ii. Schedule highest noise-generating activity and construction activity away from noise- sensitive land uses.
iii. Equip internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers which are maintained in good condition. iv. Prohibit and post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
v. Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and portable generators as far as practicable from noise-sensitive land uses. vi. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment where feasible and available.
c. Noise Barrier Standards. When noise barriers are required or proposed, their design and placement must be reviewed and approved by the project noise consultant, prior to issuance of grading or building permits. These barriers must be installed prior to grading and excavation activities and must be inspected by the project noise consultant to ensure that it has been properly constructed/installed. The barrier must remain in place for the duration of grading and excavation activities, unless approved for removal by the noise consultant to allow work at that location. d. Engine Noise. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant must demonstrate that a condition of contract of all contractors and subcontractors requires the use of internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers, which are maintained in good condition. e. Equipment Noise. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant must demonstrate that a condition of contract of all contractors and subcontractors requires the use of “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment. If the applicant demonstrates that the use of quiet air compressors and other stationary equipment is not feasible, moveable sound barriers or portable sound huts must be used for noise mitigation.
15. Construction Vibration
a. The applicant must designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.
136
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
b. Neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the project site must be noticed of the construction activities and construction schedule (including estimated dates of various construction phases) at least two weeks prior to the start of construction. c. Whenever possible, construction or equipment activity generating relatively high levels of vibration must not occur at the same time and shall be spaced as far apart in time as possible from one another. In general, the most severe activities must be reserved for the middle of the day (noon). If activities must occur simultaneously, they shall be performed as far away from one-another as possible within the construction zone. d. All deliveries of material and equipment must occur during daytime hours, including queueing of construction vehicles outside the site. Vehicles delivering materials and equipment must be operated in strict conformance with regulations established by the United States Department of Transportation and all State and Local requirements. All materials and equipment must be stored on-site and within the confines of the construction barricades.
e. Stationary and portable construction equipment must be located at positions where the noise/vibration impact to nearby noise/vibration-sensitive receptors is minimal. At times where the equipment cannot be positioned at a minimal noise/vibration impacting location, mitigation devices shall be implemented, as determined by the Project Acoustic Consultant or designated Vibration Monitor.
16. Conditions of Compliance
a. The project approval shall be subject to the satisfaction of all conditions identified in the recorded Conditional Certificate of Compliance. Failure to satisfy any of the conditions listed in the Conditional Certificate of Compliance shall render any approved entitlements null and void, as the City cannot approve development on a property that does not comply with the Subdivision Map Act. The conditions must be satisfied before the issuance of a building permit or other grant of approval for development of the parcel:
i. The property owner shall submit a record of survey, stamped by a California-licensed surveyor, that describes the property by metes and bounds. A parcel Map is required.
ii. The subject property must comply with all relevant design and improvement requirements of the Belmont Subdivision Ordinance applicable to a minor subdivision.
iii. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees in the amount specified in the Belmont Master Revenue Schedule at the time the property owner acquired the property (10/21/15). iv. Property owner must pay planned drainage fee in the amount specified in Belmont subdivision ordinance section 6.13.
137
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
17. Mid-Peninsula Water District Conditions
a. The applicant shall demonstrate that the final landscape plan has been reviewed and approved by the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD) and is consistent with MPWD’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO), prior to installation of landscaping. A post installation certification from MPWD is also required prior to final building permit inspection. Contact the MPWD Water Resource Coordinator (650) 591-8941 or [email protected] for more information.
18. Fees
a. The applicant/developer agrees to pay all applicable regulatory, connection, and impact fees, including plan check, building permit, tree removal permit, General Plan Maintenance, Park Impact, Transportation Impact, Park-In Lieu, Sewer Impact and Sewer Connection Fees, as specified by each respective City Ordinance or the City's Master Fee Schedule.
b. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant must pay all required Transportation Impact Fees (TIF), as identified in the City’s adopted Ordinance. The current fee for the project per the City's Master Fee Schedule is $7,697 per unit for Single-Family development. Fees will be adjusted to the most current adopted fee schedule at the time of payment.
c. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant must pay all required Park Impact Fees, as identified in the City’s adopted Ordinance. The current calculated fee for the project per the City's Master Fee Schedule is $14,242 per unit for Single-Family development. Fees will be adjusted to the most current adopted fee schedule at the time of payment.
19. Building Division
a. Specify that the 2022 California Code of Regulations as amended by the State of California and all applicable City of Belmont ordinances will be employed during this project. The project is also subject to compliance with the City’s Reach Code, which requires all-electric construction for the single-family dwelling.
b. The City of Belmont is located in a region once inhabited by Native Americans. A significant archaeological site has been formally identified at the Northeast quadrant of the City. Human remains and artifacts have been discovered elsewhere within the city limits.
Consequently, amend the cover sheet of the plans to state in the event human remains are discovered, work will be stopped, and the County Coroner will be contacted immediately.
In addition, it is a violation of Public Resources Code 5097.99 to retain any Native American Artifacts. Health and Safety Code 7050.5.
c. All retaining walls shall be engineered and subject to the California Building Code Standards.
138
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
d. The City of Belmont Municipal Code requires a soils and engineering geology report for all new or substantially altered foundations. Provide such a report and a letter from the geotechnical engineer confirming that the foundation plan has been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the plans. BMC 7-12, IBC 106.1 & 1804.3.
e. The contractor/property owner shall be responsible to post hours of operation and phone numbers for noise complaints.
f. A minimum of 65% of the construction waste generated by this project shall be recycled or salvaged for use. Documentation shall be provided before the final inspection. Sample forms found in “A Guide to the California Green Building Standards Code (Residential)” located at www.hcd.ca.gov/CALGreen.html may be used to assist in documenting compliance. CALGreen Section 4.408.
g. All activities shall be subject to the requirements of the Belmont Noise Ordinance (maximum 65 dBA for daytime hours, Maximum 55 dBA for nighttime hours).
II. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE SAN MATEO CONSOLIDATED FIRE DEPARTMENT:
A. The following Conditions of Approval shall be included on the plans submitted for a Building Permit:
1. A separate application and permit are required for the installation or alteration of any Automatic Fire Extinguishing System. The application shall be made by either a Registered Engineer or by the Licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor who will be performing the work.
This application shall include any Fixed Fire Protection System. A valid Permit and Approved Plans shall be at the jobsite at all times.
2. Prior to application for a Fire Sprinkler Permit, the applicant shall submit plans to the MidPeninsula Water District (MPWD) for their review and approval. Contact MPWD at 650- 591-8941 to coordinate review of the project.
3. A separate application and permit are required for the installation or alteration of any Fire Alarm, or Water-flow Monitoring System. This application shall include the interconnection of any Fixed Fire Protection System to an Alarm System where provided.
A valid Permit and Approved Plans shall be at the jobsite at all times.
4. A separate application and permit are required for the installation of any underground fire service lines. Application shall be made by a Registered Engineer or by either a General Engineering Contractor or a Licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor, who will be performing the work.
139
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
5. Every building, or structure, shall be provided with an address. Numerals shall be located where clearly visible from the street or roadway upon which it fronts. Residential Structures shall have numerals a minimum of four (4) inches in height with a stroke width not less the one-half inch in width. Numerals shall be of contrasting color to their background and illuminated at night. Numerals shall be white in color when located upon glazing.
6. Fire inspections are available Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. Call 650-522- 7940 a minimum of 48 hours in advance to place your inspection request.
7. On plans submitted for a Building Permit, show the location of all required Smoke Alarms and Carbon Monoxide Alarms, in accordance with CRC Sections 314 & 315.
8. In accordance with the Municipal/Regional Storm water Permit, no fire sprinkler system drain shall discharge into any Storm Drain System. The system shall discharge to either a landscape area large enough to contain the outflow, or to the Sanitary Sewer by means of an indirect connection. Indicate the location of the Fire Sprinkler System drain on plans submitted for a building permit.
Fire Hazards
1. Buildings on the project site are located in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, requiring design compliance with California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. This must be identified on the Building Permit plans.
2. Class 2 ignition-resistant construction must be in accordance with Chapter 7A of the CBC.
3. Unenclosed accessory structures attached to buildings with habitable spaces and projections, such as decks, must be a minimum of 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction, heavy timber construction or constructed of approved noncombustible materials or fire retardant-treated wood identified for exterior use and meeting the requirements of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code.
4. Protection of eaves. Combustible eaves, fascias and soffits must be enclosed with solid materials with a minimum thickness of ¾ inch (19 mm). No exposed rafter tails may be permitted unless constructed of heavy timber materials.
5. Roof covering. Roofs must have at least a Class B roof covering, Class B roof assembly or an approved noncombustible roof covering. For roof coverings where the profile allows a space between the roof covering and roof decking, the space at the eave ends must be firestopped to preclude entry of flames or embers.
6. Attic ventilation openings, foundation or under-floor vents or other ventilation openings in vertical exterior walls and vents through roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches (0.0929 m2) each. Such vents shall be covered with noncombustible corrosion-resistant mesh with 140
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
openings not to exceed ¼ inch (6.4 mm) or shall be designed and approved to prevent flame or ember penetration into the structure. Attic ventilation openings shall not be located in soffits, in eave overhangs, between rafters at eaves, or in other overhang areas. Gable end and dormer vents shall be located at least 10 feet (3048 mm) from property lines. Underfloor ventilation openings shall be located as close to grade as practical.
7. Buildings or structures shall have all under-floor areas enclosed to the ground, with exterior walls in accordance with 707A.8. Exception: Complete enclosure may be omitted where the underside of all exposed floors and all exposed structural columns, beams and supporting walls are protected as required for exterior 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction or heavy timber construction.
8. Pursuant to Fire Protection District, Ordinance #2016-01, and CFC Section 903, the building must receive a fire sprinkler system and the plan will be a deferred submittal.
9. Automatic Fire Sprinklers are required. A separate application and permit are required for the installation or alteration of any Automatic Fire Extinguishing System. The application must be made by either a Registered Engineer or by the Licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor who will be performing the work.
10. Prior to application for a Fire Sprinkler Permit, the applicant must submit plans to the MidPeninsula Water District (MPWD) for their review and approval. Contact MPWD at 650- 591-8941 to coordinate review of the project.
11. A separate application and permit are required for the installation of any underground fire service lines. Application must be made by a Registered Engineer or by either a General Engineering Contractor or a Licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor, who will be performing the work.
12. Buildings on the project site are located within a Wildland-Urban Interface, (High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone) requiring a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP), which has been reviewed/approved by the Fire Marshal. Said VMP must be incorporated into the Building Permit plans.
13. The VMP must be installed prior to any combustible construction on the site.
14. A VMP maintenance plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Fire Protection District, prior to final building permit inspection. Said plan must include annual or more frequent inspections of work in the interface environment.
15. Retrofit of Residential Projects - additions representing a 50% increase from the original floor area, and in a High Fire Hazard Zone: Building Permit plans must state how the existing and new parts of the structure will comply with the Cal Fire Low Cost Retrofit list. 141
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
Fire Truck Turn-Around
16. Sidewalks must be rolled curb type and be painted red. “No Parking” signage must be installed around the circumference of the turnaround and cite appropriate code language per the California Vehicle Code.
17. The road surface must be of an all-weather type and capable of supporting a 75,000lbs. vehicle. The geotechnical engineer of record shall provide a letter at the time of a building permit indicating that the proposed road segment will support the weight of such a vehicle.
III. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT:
1. All activities shall be subject to the requirements of the Belmont Noise Ordinance.
2. No debris boxes or building materials shall be stored on the street.
3. A flag person shall be required for street closures and positioned at both ends of any closure.
4. 24-hour written notice to and approval from the Belmont Police Department (BPD) is required before any lane closure. (Contact BPD Traffic Unit or Watch Commander for approvals.)
5. A signage plan is required for closures/detours – this plan must be approved by the PD Traffic Unit.
6. Any burglar alarm shall be registered with the BPD per BCC 18-50 et. Seq.
7. A minimum roadway width of 12’ shall be maintained at all times for emergency access.
8. The applicant shall provide the Police Department a security plan for the construction period, prior to issuance of a building permit. Said plan shall, at minimum, include lighting, surveillance, physical security of property, and securing of any tools, equipment and/or materials left on site. The Police Department shall also be provided 24-hour emergency contact information for the contractor and owner. The security plan and emergency contact information shall be provided to Sgt. Adam via email [email protected].
9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a truck and hauling route plan for review and approval of the PD Traffic Unit and Public Works Department. See Section Sec. 14-46. of the City Code for designated truck routes. 142
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
IV. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:
A. The following conditions shall be shown on plans prior to issuance of the first building permit (i.e., foundation permit) and shall be completed and/or installed prior to occupancy and remain in place at all times for the life of the project, except as otherwise specified in the conditions.
Public Improvements
1. Street improvements and dedications shall be in accordance with City Standards and specifications as required by the Department of Public Works and the San Juan Area Plan.
2. Storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and emergency vehicle access easements shall be provided to the City as necessary.
3. Streets, sidewalks, and curbs/gutters in need of repair within and bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in accordance with the Department of Public Works approved standards. Photographs or video of before condition are recommended.
4. New curb and gutter shall be installed in accordance with the Department of Public Works approved standards.
5. The Applicant shall prepare and submit offsite improvement plans for the proposed cul-de sac on Monte Cresta Drive concurrently with the on-site improvement plans for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The cul-de-sac layout, dimensions, radius, slopes, curb & gutter, sidewalk, drainage design, pavement repair/replacement shall be prepared in substantial conformance with the preliminary design previously approved by the Fire Department in 2017, including rolled curb & gutter, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6. The adjoining property owners with road frontage will have reciprocal obligation to maintain the improved road in a state of good repair consistent with California Civil Code §845.
Grading and Drainage
7. Roof leaders and site drainage shall be directed to a vegetated area onsite or the City stormwater drainage system. A dissipator box or other energy reduction method shall be used.
8. The owner/applicant shall submit an updated C3 & C6 stormwater pollution prevention checklist for the proposed roadway improvement, impervious calculation checklist and BMP measures checklist prior to the construction permit approval. Subsequent checklist and report are required for each parcel development.
143
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
9. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. Stormwater treatment of the roof runoff is not required if the vegetated area is designed as a self-retaining area, as described in Section
4.3 of the C.3 Technical Guidance.
10. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. Stormwater treatment of the runoff is not required if the vegetated area is designed as a self- retaining area, as described in Section 4.3 of the C.3 Technical Guidance.
11. Construct sidewalks, walkways, patios, bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces where feasible. These include porous pavement (asphalt and concrete), turf block, and permeable joint pavers. Use of permeable surfaces may reduce the size of the required treatment measure by lowering the amount of runoff generated, however, run-off from permeable surfaces will not be exempt from having to receive treatment unless properly designed as “self-treating areas” or “self-retaining areas”. Refer to sections 4.2 or 4.3 of the C.3 Tech Guidance, respectively.
12. On‐site storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping! Flows to Bay” or equivalent using thermoplastic material or a plaque.
13. Projects subject to Provision C.3.i (individual single family home projects that create and/or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface, and other projects that create and/or replace at least 2,500 square feet of impervious surface but are not C.3 Regulated Projects) shall implement at least one of the five site design measures listed below:
a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels and use rainwater for irrigation or other non-potable use.
b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas e.g. construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. e. Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces.
f. The Applicant shall install an energy dissipator structure behind the property line on the private property for the proposed lot force main prior to discharging any storm runoff into the thru curb drains in Monte Cresta Drive. The design of the energy dissipator shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. g. The Applicant shall submit complete design, calculations and plans for the proposed on-site storm drain sump, pump station and force mains for review and approval by the 144
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
Public Works Department. The storm drain sump shall be designed to maximize storage to delay pumping of the on-site drainage until after the 10-year peck flow storm events to minimize impact to the existing drainage on Monte Cresta Drive to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The storm drain pump station shall be equipped with alarm, automatic flow controls and back up pumps to avoid water being released onto downslope adjacent neighboring properties in case of pump failure. h. The project is not subject to C.3 low impact development (LID) storm water treatment requirements, however it is required to meet the Site Design Measures requirements in accordance with the requirements outlined in the San Mateo County C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, dated January 2020. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance to the Site Design Measures and provide design and details on the Building Permit submittal drawings for Public Works Department’s review and approval.
Construction Traffic
14. Prior to issuance of an encroachment, building, or grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a construction management plan (CMP) for review and approval by the Public Works Department in consultation with the Community Development Department and Police Department. For properties located at or in close proximity to the City borders, the plan shall be routed to adjacent jurisdictions. The CMP shall include a response to construction-related conditions and requirementsidentified by reviewing City departments, and outside agencies for inclusion in the Plan. The plan shall include at least the following items:
a) Schedule
A project construction schedule shall be provided that includes the approximate date and expected time frame for each stage of construction. At minimum, the schedule shall include:
• Excavation & Shoring (as applicable)
• Below Grade & Foundation Construction
• Above Grade Construction & Framing
• Exterior & Interior Finish Work
• Public Frontage Improvements
• Offsite & Utility Improvements
b) Site & Logistics Plan
Site and logistics plan(s) shall be provided for each phase of project construction. Said plan(s) shall include:
• Location of Construction Fencing & Access Control for The Site • Proposed Circulation Pattern, including Access & Egress, for Each Phase of Construction
145
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
• Location of Dewatering Tanks, Construction Trailer, Temporary Power Pole, & Restrooms
• Erosion & Dust Control Plans
• Security & Lighting Plans
• Location of Construction Staging Areas for Materials, Equipment, & Vehicles • Crane Plane (Location, Height, & Radius), as applicable • Construction Worker Parking
c) Traffic Control Plan
Routes for construction-related traffic (hauling, deliveries, works, etc.) shall be identified in consultation with the Department of Public Works. Grading, hauling, and construction delivery traffic shall be timed to avoid peak hour school and work commute traffic. The CMP shall identify the maximum size of construction equipment /trucks, during construction, expected temporary street closure and the use of flag personnel during construction, and the location of construction worker parking/car-pooling. Comprehensive traffic control measures shall be identified, including: any required detour signage, lane closures, and sidewalk closures. A 24 Hour Written notice must be given to the Public Works and Police Departments prior to lane closures. Trained flag persons shall be positioned at both ends of blocked traffic lanes to ensure safe movement of vehicles, and pedestrians. The proposed traffic control plan may require review by a traffic engineer, to ensure an adequate intersection/driveway turning radius would be provided for large vehicles, and/or when other large projects are in construction at the same time. d) Noticing
The CMP shall include notice to property owners within 300 feet of the project site two weeks prior to grading, and identification of haul route(s) and staging area for the project. The notice shall also include a process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity, including identification of an on-site complaint manager. 24-hour advance written notice shall also be provided to adjacent property owners, adjacent businesses, and Public Works and Police Department personnel prior to all major deliveries, detours, and lane closures.
e) Road Conditions
Documentation of road pavement conditions shall be provided to the Public Works Department for all routes that will be used by construction vehicles, both before and after project construction. Roads found to have been damaged by construction vehicles shall be repaired to the level at which they existed prior to project construction. f) Response to CMP Conditions
A response shall be provided to CMP conditions from other City departments, and outside agencies.
146
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
B. The following conditions shall be met prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit for roadway construction and issuance of the first building permit (i.e., foundation permit), and/or site development permit except as otherwise specified in the conditions:
Public Works Permits
1. The property owner/applicant shall apply for and obtain temporary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works for work in the City public right-of-way, easements or property in which the City holds an interest, including driveway, sidewalk, sewer connections, sewer clean-outs, curb drains, storm drain connections, placement of a debris box.
2. Property owner/applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the Department of Public Works. The grading permit fee is based on the total amount of earth moved including cut and fill.
Other Agency Permits
3. Verify location of utility meters, valves, back flow preventers, and hydrants with appropriate utility company. Show relationship of each to site improvements, such as retaining walls.
Grading and Drainage
4. The owner/applicant shall provide field survey data permit retracing all survey monuments set to establish the street rig of way both public and private.
5. The owner/applicant shall analyze the existing storm drain system from the property boundary to the outfall. On-site and off-site drainage facilities such as catch basins and storm drain pipes shall be designed to collect runoff from a storm of 10-year return frequency. Should any deficiency in this system be found that would be affected by increased runoff from the project site, the owner/applicant shall improve the downstream system or contribute a proportionate share of the cost for improvements as determined by the Public Works Department.
6. The owner/applicant shall submit a grading plan prepared by a California-registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Grading Ordinance, Chapter 9, Section 3 of the City Code, with a grading permit application, for approval by the Department of Public Works and Building Division prior to any grading or clearing being performed on-site:
a. The applicant should note that if the proposed grading meets one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 9-23 of the City Code, a Planning Commission review will be required. Caution: If the total grading quantity changes after Planning Commission approval, a new grading approval may be required. The applicant may choose to 147
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
complete the grading plan and calculations early in the planning process to limit delays in scheduling this review. (See Section 9-28 of City Code for review process). The plan shall incorporate the following restrictions:
a. All soils stockpiled on the site during construction shall be covered or otherwise protected from wind and water erosion.
b. During construction, erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be implemented in order to retain sediments on-site.
c. Site grading and finished construction shall be designed and executed in such a manner as to avoid diverting runoff onto other properties. d. Restrictions and recommendation of the Geologic and Soils report as approved by the City’s Geologist.
7. The owner/applicant shall submit a dust control plan for approval by the Department of Public Works. To reduce dust levels, exposed earth surfaces shall be watered as necessary.
The application of water shall be monitored to prevent runoff into the storm drain system.
Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled. The measures shall also include:
a. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
f. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials.
h. Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
148
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j. Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement. k. Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. l. Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. m. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.
n. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation. o. Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than five minutes and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules.
p. Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. q. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. r. Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Utilities
8. Applicant shall install the sanitary sewer connection in accordance with Department of Public Works approved standards and pay the applicable sewer connection fee.
9. The Applicant shall install a sanitary sewer cleanout at the property line in accordance with the City Standard Details and Specifications. The sanitary sewer cleanout shall be shown on the utility plans for review and approval by the Public Works Department.
10. Prior to issuance of a permit, a construction management plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. The construction management plan shall implement the following:
• Routes for construction-related traffic (hauling, deliveries, workers, etc.) shall be identified in consultation with the Department of Public Works. • No staging shall be permitted on the public right-of-way. • Said plan shall include notice to surrounding property owners two weeks prior to grading, and identification of haul route(s) and staging areas for the project. 149
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
• Grading, hauling and construction delivery traffic shall be timed to avoid peak hour school and work commute traffic.
• Said plan shall also identify the maximum size of construction equipment/trucks, during construction, expected temporary street closure and the use of flag personnel during construction, and the location of construction worker parking/car-pooling. • Failure to abide by the established construction management plan may result in a stop work order.
11. Sanitary sewer shall include a back-flow prevention device, if required.
12. If PG&E is requiring the developer to put in the gas and/or electrical connection, then the developer must submit plans for the encroachment to the Department to Public Works.
Improvements
13. All utilities to each lot including, but not limited to, electric power, telephone, cable television, and streetlights, shall be provided underground.
14. The owner/applicant shall provide a traffic control plan for all construction staging and storage areas.
15. The owner/applicant shall provide a plan showing all the site improvements and utility trench locations. The plan shall indicate the location of all the protected trees and protection fences on site. No utility trench shall encroach within the protection fence areas.
16. The applicant shall construct all on and off-site improvements according to standards approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement and post 100% improvement performance and labor/material bonds with the City for the construction of the road.
17. The improvement agreement shall provide for payment of all grading permit fees and inspection charges including the reviews by the City’s Consultant Geologist in accordance with the City’s Grading Ordinance.
18. The improvement agreement shall provide for payment of City inspection and plan check charges associated with the installation of public and private improvements including, but not limited to streets, sanitary sewers, and storm drains. A cash deposit shall be made in accordance with the fee schedule, against which the City will assess its costs. A refund or additional charge will be made at the conclusion of construction.
NPDES Stormwater Controls
19. The project shall comply with all requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Provision C.3.
150
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
20. All plans shall conform to the requirements of the City NPDES Stormwater discharge permit and the San Mateo Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (STOPPP). The project plans shall include permanent storm water quality protection measures. The project plans shall identify Best Management Practices appropriate to the uses to be conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the discharge of pollutants with stormwater run off.
21. All landscaping shall be maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation systems to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.
22. The applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system. The plan shall include the following items:
a) A site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography, and slopes; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal area; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourses or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas. b) Erosion and sediment controls to be used during construction, selected as appropriate from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Erosion and P.O. Box 791, Oakland, CA 94604-0791. c) Methods and procedures to stabilize denuded areas and install and maintain temporary erosion and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established.
d) Provision for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site, such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, fiber rolls, silt fence, check dams, storm drain inlet protection, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stockpiles and/or other measures.
e) Provisions for installing vegetative cover in disturbed areas, including areas to be seeded, planted, and/or mulched, and types of vegetation proposed. f) Provision for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and diverting offsite runoff around the project site (e.g., swales and dikes). g) Notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetation and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material; types of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation. 151
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
23. Self-treating areas must be designed to store and infiltrate the rainfall that lands on the self-treating area. Refer to Section 4.2 of the C.3 Technical Guidance.
24. Self-retaining areas must be designed to store and infiltrate the rainfall run-off volume described in the MRP Provision C.3.d (80% capture volume), for rainfall that lands on the self-retaining area and the impervious surface that drains to the self-retaining area. Refer to Section 4.3 of the C.3 Technical Guidance.
C. The following conditions shall be met prior to occupancy except as otherwise specified in the conditions.
Public Works Permit
1. The property owner/applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative permanent encroachment agreement from the Department of Public Works, for placement of nonstandard materials (i.e., brick pavers) within the public right-of-way.
2. Failure to comply with any permit condition may result in a “Stop Work” order or other penalty.
Grading and Drainage
3. Grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance, Chapter 9 of the City Code. Soil or other construction materials shall not be stockpiled in the public right-of-way unless an encroachment permit is obtained from the Department of Public Works. Grading shall neither be initiated nor continued between November 15 and April
15. Grading shall be done between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Director of Public Works. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction shall be implemented to protect water quality.
NPDES Stormwater Controls
4. The owner/applicant shall ensure that all construction personnel follow standard BMPs for stormwater quality protection during construction of project. These includes, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Store, handle and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly, so as to prevent their contact with stormwater.
b) Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediment, and nonstormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses. 152
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
c) Use sediment controls, filtration, or settling to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.
d) Do not clean, fuel, or maintain vehicles on-site, except in a designated area in which runoff is contained and treated.
e) Delineate clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses with field markers or fencing. f) Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching or other measures as appropriate.
g) Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather (April 15 through November 14).
h) Limit and time applications of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff. i) Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points. j) Do not track dirt or other materials off-site; clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods.
5. If construction is not complete by the start of the wet season (November 15 through April 15), prior to November 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation. As appropriate to the site and status of construction, disturbed soils through temporary or permanent seeding, mulching, matting, tarping or other winterization requirements shall include inspecting/maintaining/cleaning all soil erosion and sedimentation controls prior to, during, and immediately after each storm event; stabilizing physical means; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of- way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels, and other chemicals. Plans to include proposed measures to prevent erosion and polluted runoff from all site conditions. As site conditions warrant, the Department of Public Works may direct the developer to implement additional winterization requirements.
6. Fire sprinkler test water shall discharge to onsite vegetated areas, or, alternatively shall be discharged to the sanitary sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards.
7. Air conditioning condensate shall drain to landscaping, or alternatively may be connected to the sanitary sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards.
153
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
8. Construct sidewalks, walkways, patios, bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. These include porous pavement (asphalt and concrete), turf block, and permeable joint pavers.
Public Improvements
9. "As-built" drawings for any public improvement including streets, sewers, etc. shall be submitted to the City in AutoCAD on CD ROM.
D. The project is subject to Public Works Department and City Geologist review and approval with the following conditions:
Geotechnical
1. The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for retaining walls and pavement) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated.
2. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall review the geotechnical aspects of the structural plans and calculations for the new residence and provide a professional certification letter to the City.
3. Final construction plans for the project on-site drainage system (e.g., cross section through the sump area, and design details) shall be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer and Geotechnical Peer Reviewer for the proposed project. These design plans should be submitted with a letter indicating that geotechnical design aspects have been completed to the satisfaction of the Project Geotechnical Consultant.
4. Final construction plans for project retaining walls should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer and Geotechnical Peer Reviewer for the proposed project.
These design plans should be submitted with a letter indicating that geotechnical design aspects have been completed to the satisfaction of the Project Geotechnical Consultant.
5. The project geotechnical consultant shall review the asphalt sections for the project to ensure their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The design plans should be submitted with a letter indicating that geotechnical design aspects have been completed to the satisfaction of the Project Geotechnical Consultant.
6. The geotechnical engineer shall be retained to observe the geotechnical and foundation aspects of the construction. Testing and observation, as applicable, are required for all grading operations and soils testing, and the engineer shall observe all foundation excavations and confirm that adequate embedment has been achieved in supporting materials judged to be competent supporting material as identified by the geotechnical engineer.
154
Draft Conditions of Approval
Monte Cresta Drive, PA#2015-0057
February 13, 2024
7. At the completion of construction, the geotechnical engineer shall provide written confirmation that all grading operations have been conducted in accordance with the project plans, specifications, and the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations, with supporting data or reference to such data. Confirmation shall be provided in the form of a written report to be submitted to the City prior to granting of final occupancy.
8. At the completion of construction, the geotechnical engineer shall provide written confirmation that all structural foundations have been completed in accordance with the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations, and that foundation support in bearing or supporting materials has been achieved in accordance with the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations. Confirmation shall be provided in the form of a written letter to be submitted to the City prior to granting of final occupancy.
Certification of Approved Final Conditions:
Rob D. Gill, Senior Planner Date
155
6 2
4 5
2635
2848
3009
2814 2834 2828
2626 2817
2810
2705
2942
2633
3004
2820
2819
2838
2824
2808
2943
2719
2709
2830
2705
2815
2814
2821
2813
2816
2704
2820
2810
2706
2714
2717
2718
3020
2936
3006
2833
2807
2831
2827
2812
2945
2821
2806
2839
2809
2725
2721
2721
2823
2701
2700
2814
2703
2805
2805
2815
2843
2708
2807
2826
2815
2817
2812
2810
2819
2637
2940
2825
2835
2717
2813
2707
2718 2814
2817
2809
2702
2947
2823
2708
2723
2803
2824
2712
2811
2715
2700
2930
2813
2603
2825
2806
2700
3013
2707
2714
2820
2705 2706
2701
2701
2703
2818
2816
2709
2702
2617
2638
2926 2613
2716
2724
2615
2636
3022
3030
3028
3032
3026
2631
2624
3008
2622
3010
2811
2711
3012
2713
3014
2629
2808
3016
2620
2941
2726
2934
2804
2712
2809
2803
2720
2932
2627
2710
2709
27112709
27152713
2710 2712
2707
27062704
2827
2847
2845
2722
2807
2627
2617
2711
3024
2924 2611
2634
2600
2805
2625
2619
2712
2937
2621
3015
2632
2803
3034
Barclay
Way
All View Way
Sequoia
Way
San Ardo Way
San Juan Boulevard
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
RE: Monte Cresta Drive, PA# 2015-0057
November 7, 2023
¯
0 125 250 500 Feet
3 0 0 '
5 0 0 '
156
1 February 13, 2024 City Council Meeting
RE: Summary and Response to Public Comments
Introduction
This document provides a summary/response regarding public comments received on the Monte Cresta Drive Hillside Road Extension & Single Family Design Review Project. The Belmont Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on November 21, 2023. Prior to the public hearing, staff received written comments. Each comment received was read to identify key public concerns/topics. Comments were evaluated, and a copy of these communications is attached to this summary report. The key issues raised in the public comments are discussed below.
Comments Received
A total of 20 comments (e-mails and letters) were received prior to the public hearing. Below is a list of the parties that commented on the project and the date of the comments.
Table 1 - Comments Received
Commenter Date
Justine and Jim Eller November 18, 2023
Jeff Marshall November 19, 2023
Kim Moore November 19, 2023
Pierre St-Hilaire & Louise Morin November 20, 2023
Kristin Mercer November 20, 2023
Joyce Lee November 20, 2023
Thomas Zackor November 20, 2023
Mark Herbach & Etta Herbach November 20, 2023
Jennifer Lai November 20, 2023
Kopal & Madhu Nallu November 21, 2023
Kirstin Hornby November 21, 2023
Max Reinhardt November 21, 2023
157
2 Warren C. Gibson November 21, 2023
Casey Krueger November 21, 2023
Timothy Robertson & Jyothi Robertson November 21, 2023
Geri Crane & Ken Wach November 21, 2023
Philippe Levy November 21, 2023
Gail Mintz November 21, 2023
Coralin Feierbach November 21, 2023
Linnaea Knisely November 21, 2023
Issues Raised in Comments
1. Comment: The current proposal does not comply with the Fire Code; require questionable exceptions from the Municipal Code; ignores the CA AG guidance to cities to address the problems we all see with devastating wildfires in CA; concerns about emergency evacuation during wildfires.
Response: The San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMCFD) and the Public Works Department (PWD) has reviewed the proposed turnaround design and determined that the length and turnaround design is appropriate with the stipulation that the turnaround includes “No Parking” and “red curb” to provide for adequate emergency access.
The project site is located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The project would follow the code requirements in Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure) of the California Building Code, as required by the City’s standard Conditions of Approval (COA) for development in wildfire zones. The City’s standard COAs for development in wildfire zones are included in the project COAs. San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department COA# II. A. 1 – 15 Fire Hazards.
Given the small increase in population with development of this one residential parcel, the additional population and subsequent traffic is not anticipated to cause delays or otherwise impact the evacuation of the neighboring residents. The proposed improvement of the turnaround will further improve the fire response in the area.
2. Comment: The current proposal ignores the State requirement in the Seismic Hazard Act and does not fully analyze landslide risks that could lead to devastation to the neighbors.
Response: At their November 21, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the proposed project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the project entitlements and exceptions. The Commission further recommended that the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GEOR) provide an updated letter to the project Geotechnical Investigation report addressing the 2018 Seismic Hazards Map Act (SHMA) requirements, and the City Council receive a peer review letter confirming the SHMA requirements have been satisfactorily addressed by the GEOR and that seismic slope stability issues would not preclude development of the 158
3 project. The geotechnical information addressing the 2018 SHMA was submitted for the project and was peer reviewed by the City’s geotechnical consultant in a letter dated January 26, 2024.
3. Comment: There is clear evidence that the proposal is not compliant with a number of State and City laws; requires numerous exceptions and variances; and the City is not fully disclosing information to the public that will be affected and that is necessary to evaluate and comment on the plan in a public setting as required by law. Why is this being rushed? Response: The project is in compliance with State and City Codes. The project is seeking two exceptions to the hillside road standards and a Conditional Use Permit authorizing a smaller lot size as described below. The project is not seeking any variances.
Pursuant to Belmont City Code (BCC) Section 7-13(e)(7), exceptions to any of the hillside road standards may be granted by the administrative or legislative body approving the road improvement project upon recommendation of the city engineer based on consultation with the fire chief and appropriate engineering evaluations. The project is seeking an exception to eliminate parking lanes. The project is also seeking an exception to the general standards for a longer cul-de-sac and smaller turnaround radius. The standards for an unimproved road segment terminating in a cul-de-sac are set forth in Belmont City Code Section (BCC) 7- 13(4)(i). Longer cul-de-sacs and smaller turnarounds may be permitted by the authority approving a road improvement upon the recommendation of the city engineer based on consultation with the fire chief. The Public Works Department and Fire Department has reviewed the project and can recommend approval of the exceptions with the stipulation that the turnaround includes “No Parking” and “red curb” to provide for adequate emergency access. The staff report (dated 11/21/23) and associated memos from the City Engineer and Fire department provides detailed analysis of the requested exceptions and recommendations.
The City of Belmont has issued a Conditional Certificate of Compliance for the project site to bring the property into compliance with the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and Belmont Subdivision Ordinance. The property will need to satisfy all relevant zoning regulations, including minimum lot size, before it may be developed or otherwise entitled. The applicant has requested an exception to provisions of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO) (Section
4.7.9 “a Conditional Use Permit authorizing a smaller lot size”). The staff report provides a detailed analysis of the requested Conditional Use Permit. See also response to comments #4 and 6.
4. Comment: Compliance is a legal requirement under State law. Shouldn't residents be given the opportunity to present evidence to be judged by City decision makers? Response: This comment appears to be in regards to residents that claim they were not given ample time to review the project materials prior to notice of the public hearing and present their issues with the project to decision makers. The project application was submitted to the City in November 2015. The applicant performed neighborhood outreach in December 2015 and in 2017; the applicant has also sent notices to property owners abutting the unimproved portion of Monte Cresta Drive requesting their input on the proposed project. The applicant also reported holding a meeting with abutting property owners on site. Since the time of the 159
4 application submittal, multiple public hearings have taken place on appeals and other actions to the Planning Commission and City Council. Residents were notified of the public hearings and given the opportunity to provide written correspondence and attend the hearings and provide public testimony on the project. Since the time of submittal of the application, several residents have made several inquiries to the status of the project and reviewed the application materials, plans, reports, studies, letters, and other materials at City Hall. In addition, several residents have requested and received electronic and hard copies of project materials (including geotechnical reports, peer review letters, arborist report, drainage analysis, letters, e-mails, and other correspondence). See also response to comments #6
5. Comment: The legality of the Parcels under the Subdivision Map Act and Floor Area transfer - This is at minimum a policy question. This needs to be discussed openly and transparently and the City should not blindly do the developers bidding. Residents have a clear interest in the outcome and have legal rights.
Response: The applicant applied for a Certificate of Compliance for the subject property and two parcels which would potentially be candidates for a floor area transfer. After reviewing the applications, the Community Development Director, in consultation with the City Attorney, determined that a Conditional Certificate of Compliance (“CCOC”) was warranted. A CCOC is issued when it has been determined that a property does not comply with the State of California’s Subdivision Map Act (“SMA”) and includes a list of conditions that must be satisfied in order to bring the property into compliance with the SMA. A condition identified in the CCOC application was that the subject properties must comply with all relevant Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance standards for lot size, dimensions, and standards at the time the property owner acquired the property.
Transferring floor area from one HRO-2 zoned property to another must be consistent with the policies in the San Juan Hills Area Plan and Belmont City Code Section 7-12. To be consistent with Land Use Policies 8 and 9, a transfer lot under Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 4.7.11 must have development potential. Whether an illegally created lot has development potential that can be transferred consistent with the Area Plan's policies may depend in part on the circumstances of its creation. Illegally created parcels that were established after the adoption of the San Juan Hills Area Plan are not considered eligible for a transfer of floor area or other development potential transfer until the parcels are brought into compliance with development standards. The receiving and sending parcels considered for a floor area transfer for this project were created prior to the adoption of the San Juan Hills Area Plan but were considered part of the buildout of the Area Plan. Thus, these parcels are eligible for a transfer of floor area or other development potential transfer. It should be noted that the CCOC conditions that were levied for the two sending transfer lots for the project does not apply as the lots would result in the establishment of a conservation easement over both lots which would eliminate the development potential of the two lots.
6. Comment: Why has the City created suddenly, without explanation, and contrary to past practices a new rule that prohibits copying of the relevant documents in this proposal. What is being hidden? Is this in the interest of anyone other than the developer? Response: Absent of a design professionals’ permission, local planning agencies are generally prohibited from posting copies of design drawings on the internet. City staff 160
5 requested permission from the engineer of record and the applicant to post the project plans on the city’s website prior to the November 21, 2023, Planning Commission hearing, but was not granted permission. Said permission has been recently granted by the applicant, and interested parties have received a copy of the project plans. These plans are also included as an attachment to the City Council staff report – see Attachment R.
7. Comment: City staff determined that parts of the Municipal Code are unenforceable - What is the legal authority for this? Why is this not arbitrary and capricious? Can this be done arbitrarily by City staff for anything? Laws are changed with a legislative process, not the dictate of City staff.
Response: BCC Sections 7-13(e)(9)(a)(1-11) and (b) includes the application submittal requirements for a roadway plan. BCC 7-13(e)(9)(a)(9) states that the applicant must provide evidence of support for the project from property owners abutting the road proposed for improvement. This submittal requirement does not give unconstitutional delegation of authority of a property owner to make a government decision whether the project can be approved based on their yes or no decision. The intent of the requirement was to ensure that access to abutting properties along the unimproved road section has been adequately considered in the design of the road improvements, and that any comments received from property owners abutting the unimproved portion of the roadway would be included in the application submittal. The 2017 City Council Resolution (upholding the Planning Commission’s decision that the project application was incomplete) provided the intent of the submittal requirement and required that the applicant provide comments on the proposed extension from property owners abutting the unimproved portion of Monte Cresta Drive. (See attached 2017 City Council Resolution).
8. Comment: The project does not meet the threshold for a CEQA 15332 Categorical Exemption: In-Fill Development Projects (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
Response: The Categorical Exemption evaluation that was prepared for the project includes a detailed analysis of CEQA Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Project). (See attached Categorical Exemption evaluation pgs. 41-67). The Categorical Exemption evaluation includes a complete consistency analysis with statements and references to the applicable General Plan and San Juan Hills Area Plan policies, and applicable zoning regulations. As noted in response #3 above, the project is seeking exceptions to the roadway standards and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) authorizing a smaller lot size. The General Plan and San Juan Hills Area Plan is implemented by the City Code and Zoning Ordinance and expressively allows for the exceptions that are being sought (exceptions to parking lanes, longer cul-desac/smaller turnaround radius, and smaller lot size via a CUP). Thus, the project will be consistent with the applicable zoning regulations with approval of the exceptions to the roadway standards and lot size.
The project is also eligible for a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a) and (d):
161
6 (a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
(d) Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction.
Thus, the project also qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a) and (d), as it would involve the construction of one single-family residence; associated water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and storm drain utility extensions; and street improvements (i.e., a road extension) designed to serve the residence.
9. Comment: This project should be disqualified from a Categorical Exemption based on: (1) Cumulative Impact; and (2) A reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. CEQA Statues and Guidelines 15300.2
Response: An evaluation of the exceptions to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 is included in the Categorical Exemption evaluation that was prepared for the project. (See attached Categorical Exemption evaluation pgs. 67-69). None of the exceptions to CEQA Categorial Exemptions apply to the project. The single-family home and the road extension project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Sections 15303 and 15332.
10. Comment: FAR transfer does not comply with existing hillside policies in the Belmont General plan, and the San Juan Hills Area Plan. The transfer of floor area from the two other lots to add 2400 sq. ft to increase the home size to 3,299 is illegal.
Response: Belmont Zoning Ordnance (BZO) Section 4.7.11 and the HRO-2 Floor Area Ratio Standards Table implements San Juan Hills Area Plan Policy 81 establishing the 1 Policy 8 (Control the Size and Limit the Number of Houses in Vacant Subdivided Areas in the Hillside Residential and Open Space Area) provides as follows:
a. Establish regulations to govern the permitted size of residences in the vacant subdivided areas shown on Figure 5. These regulations will limit the size of the permitted residence based on the size, slope, and location of the lot. The intent of these regulations is to ensure that new houses are not too large for the slope and size of their lot, to limit the number of houses in vacant subdivided areas and to facilitate the recombination of small, vacant lots in order to assure safe development and minimize risk of injury and property damage. Footnote continued page 7.
b. These regulations shall establish a minimum and maximum house size. They shall be designed so that, as much as possible, houses constructed are large enough to be visually compatible with existing residences, but limited in size so that their visual, natural resource and safety impacts are minimized. c. These regulations may be more restrictive for lots which have a critical geologic hazard for residential development, namely they are predominantly characterized as Pdf or Md on Figure 4. The intent of making regulations more restrictive for these lots would be to discourage the development of unsafe houses, and to encourage owners to transfer their permitted development potential to owners of lots in areas that are more geologically stable.
162
7 regulations to govern the permitted size of residences in the HRO-2 Zoning District. BZO Section 4.7.11(d) implements Policy 92 establishing the standards and requirements for the permanent transfer of floor area from one parcel to another.
Pursuant to BZO Section 4.7.11(b), the floor area on each lot shall not total more than 3,500 sq. ft. and is allowed to be at least 900 sq. ft. Based on BZO Sections 4.7.11 and the HRO-2 Floor Area Ratio Standards Table, the subject building site at 49% slope is allowed 900 sq. ft. of floor area. Pursuant to BZO Section 4.7.11(d), non-contiguous parcels within the HRO2 Zoning District are permitted a permanent transfer of floor area (1,200 sq. ft.) from one parcel to another. A conservation easement is required to be recorded over the entire sending property. The applicant proposes to transfer floor area from two non-contiguous parcels along the unimproved portion of Monte Cresta Drive allowing the permanent transfer of 2,400 square feet of floor area to the building site. Therefore, the site would be allowed a maximum of 3,300 sq. ft. of floor area for the site. Thus, the proposed project is in compliance with the SJHAP policies and BZO Section 4.7.11.
11. Comment: The receiving lot does not comply with the requirement that it should be a more suitable site for a home compared to the sending lot. The sending lots are probably around 44% (based on the slope cut of the full road document which states the degrees closest to these 2 lots).
Response: San Juan Hills Area Plan Policy 9.a. in part, states that construction of houses on lots should be close to existing roads and eliminate development potential on lots in areas with the most critical geologic hazards (such as areas mapped or designated Md or Pdf on the current geologic hazards map). BZO Section 4.7.11 (d)(3) Conditional Use Permit Finding “c” requires that “the pattern of development which would result from the transfer of floor area is better than could be achieved through the application of this ordinance without floor area transfer, due to less grading, less street and utility extension, and better building site locations.”
The project site parcel is located at the end of the existing paved terminus of Monte Cresta Drive and near existing utilities. The project site has a slope of 49% and does not contain any 2 Policy 9 (Density Transfer in vacant, Subdivided Area) provides as follows:
a. Allow property owners to voluntarily transfer the development potential they are permitted by the regulations proposed in Policy 8 along the roadway on which they are located. This transfer is permitted in order to permit the construction of houses on lots close to existing roads and eliminate development potential on lots in areas with the most critical geologic hazards and farthest from existing roads. b. The City shall establish regulations permitting landowners sell the development potential permitted them by the regulations implementing Policy 8 to owners along the same roadway. Landowners who elect to sell all of their development potential shall be restricted to permanent open space. Adequate and permanent arrangements for the long-term ownership, management and maintenance of these sending parcels shall be required.
c. Regulations shall be developed to provide incentive to landowners who purchase the development potential. These incentives may include reduced minimum lot sizes, increases in the sizes of houses, or density bonuses.
163
8 soils that would present a critical geological hazard for residential development (i.e., Pdf or Md soils). The two sending lots (Lots 43 & 19) that are candidates for a floor area transfer are not located near existing utilities or at the end of an existing improved road. The entirety of Lot 43 is mapped Pdf which is a critical geologic hazard. Based on the City’s online Parcel Viewer Map, Lot 43 has a slope of 60.71% and Lot 19 a slope of 57.26% (Reference/Source:
Belmont Elevation Viewer - Community Development Maps | City of Belmont). Thus, given all of the factors above, the receiving parcel is more favorable for development.
12. Comment: The receiving site must be at least 20,000 square feet in area.
Response: The 20,000 square foot lot standard for the receiving site is a requirement for a “Density Transfer” under BZO Section 4.7.11(e)(2)(a). A Density Transfer in part, is the permanent transfer of “residential units” in the HRO-2 Zoning District from one group of lots to another. The project is seeking a “Floor Area Transfer” or the permanent transfer of “floor area” from one parcel to another allowed under BZO Section 4.7.11(d). Thus, the 20,000 square foot lot requirement is not applicable.
13. Comment: The legislative intent was to not allow incremental extension of the unimproved road. (See City Council Resolution No. 6523).
Response: The proposed road plan would be for a segment of roadway that will serve as access to the subject property. A road segment plan may be approved when, among other findings, it can be demonstrated that a stable, safe, through road cannot be reasonably constructed because of physical constraints.
Infrastructure Policy 10 requires property owners to resolve the design and financing of road improvements, and to assure adequate infrastructure improvements are available before permitting development to proceed and to assure safe access for emergency vehicles and the construction of safe roads. This policy permanently ended incremental development of unimproved roads within the Area Plan. (See attached City Council Resolution No. 6523 and 1988 Memorandum to City Council & 1988 SJHAP EIR for more information).
Belmont City Code Section 7-13(e) implements Infrastructure Policy 10 by establishing application requirements and findings for approval of a through road or road segment. The applicant has provided the overall road improvement plans and financing mechanisms for the proposed roadway extension. The project has been reviewed and found acceptable by the city at this stage of the development review process. The applicant intends to self-finance the design, permitting, inspection and construction of the roadway and enter into reimbursement agreements with property owners gaining access to their properties from the road extension.
The applicant would fund all costs associated with construction. The estimate submitted by the applicant’s engineer for construction of the roadway is approximately $245,424.00. The property owner/applicant will be required to post a bond to ensure completion of the proposed road.
The adjoining property owners with road frontage will have reciprocal obligation to maintain the improved road until such time as the City formally accepts the road into the city street system. A conceptual plan to access properties along the remainder of unimproved Monte Cresta was submitted with the project application. The project is consistent with 164
9 Infrastructure Policy 10 and Belmont City Code Section 7-13(e). Thus, the project would not create an incremental extension of the unimproved Monte Cresta Road. The Categorical Exemption evaluation that was prepared for the project further demonstrates the consistency with Infrastructure Policy 10.
14. Comment: Working from home is the only option for many of us with kids in school and inability to perform work properly due to sound levels risks our job and therefore our livelihood.
Response: City standard conditions would require the applicant to address potential noise and vibration prior to and during grading and construction operations. As a Condition of Approval (COA), the project would also be required to comply with the City of Belmont’s Noise Control Ordinance. Prior to construction activities, the project applicant or contractor will be required to designate a “Construction Noise Coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The telephone number for the Construction Noise Coordinator must be posted at the construction site. Prior to construction activities, the project applicant or contractor will be required to notify adjacent residents of the construction schedule in writing and provide them with the contact information of the Construction Noise Coordinator. Planning COA# I. A. 14. (a-e) Noise, Plaining COA# I. A. 15. (a-e) Construction Vibration, Building COA# I. A. 19. e. and g., and Police COA# III. A. 1.
15. Comment: Drainage, erosion control and slope stability have not been fully addressed in the design of the road improvements.
The applicant has submitted a C-3 Checklist, drainage study, and drainage, grading and erosion control plans. The submitted materials identify appropriate methods to treat drainage from the roadway. The project has been reviewed and found acceptable by the City’s Department of Public Works at this stage of the Development Review process. The road improvements have been evaluated through geotechnical investigations conducted by licensed geotechnical engineers and peer reviewed by the City’s consulting geotechnical engineer. According to the applicant’s geotechnical engineer, with confirmation by the City’s consulting geotechnical engineer through peer review, the proposed roadway extension is geotechnically feasible with utilization of appropriate geotechnical design criteria.
The project design and construction would be required to comply with all geotechnical recommendations contained within the project geotechnical reports and must comply with the City’s building standards for development in areas that may be subject to geological hazards to receive a building permit(s). Conditions contained in the project approval will ensure that all acceptable standards for drainage, erosion control and slope stability have been incorporated in the project design. DPW COA# IV. A. 7-13. Grading and Drainage, DPW COA# IV. B. 4-7 Grading and Drainage, DPW COA# IV. B. 19-24 NPDES Stormwater Controls, DPW COA# IV. C. 3. Grading and Drainage and DPW COA# IV. C. 4-8 NPDES Stormwater.
165
10 16. Comment: The proposed home will require the removal of several oak trees, which are protected by law. These trees provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, including deer and hawks. We are concerned about the impact that the removal of these trees will have on the local environment.
Response: The project includes the removal of one Coast live oak tree on site. All other onsite trees would be protected during project construction through implementation of a tree protection plan. Planning COA# I. A 11 Tree Protection.
17. Comment: The arid conditions and the high winds on the hillside will fly all the dust and construction material in our clear air, causing breathing/asthmatic issues for the older & less immune.
Response: The project construction phases would be temporary and cease following the end of construction. The proposed construction would be required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality District’s (BAAQD) construction measures, and the City’s air quality and grading measures to limit potential construction air pollutants. The BAAQD and City’s air quality and grading measures are included in the project Conditions of Approval (COA).
Planning COA# I. A. 8. (a-e) Air Quality.
18. Comment: The big construction trucks will pose a major hazard to all the kids including several elementary children on our street who walk to school, not to mention the traffic congestion it will cause.
Response: To prevent traffic impacts, the applicant will be required to submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the Department of Public Works (DPW). A primary consideration of this plan would be to ensure that project construction does not adversely impact traffic operations within the surrounding neighborhoods. A Condition of Approval (COA) is included requiring that a final construction management plan be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance. DPW COA# IV. A. 14. Construction Traffic and DPW COA# IV. B. 10. Utilities.
End.
Attached: Public Comments
2017 City Council Resolution
1988 City Council Resolution (No. 6523)
Link Here: 1988 Memorandum to City Council & 1988 SJHAP EIR Linked here: Categorical Exemption Evaluation
166
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: Subject: 2800 block of Monte Cresta Development review (complex project) Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:48:47 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
From: Kopal Madhu N
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 6:33 PM
To: x-community development <[email protected]>; x-City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>; Planning Comm <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: 2800 block of Monte Cresta Development review (complex project) Dear Commission Members,
We, the undersigned, are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed home construction by Jeff Kraft and his associates behind our homes. We have several concerns about this project, including:
The lack of transparency from the commission. We have not been provided with any details on the design of the proposed home, including the height and width of the house relative to the neighboring homes. We believe that this is a critical piece of information that we need in order to make an informed decision about this project.
The potential for landslides, fire hazards, and flooding. The proposed home is located in a hillside area that is prone to landslides. We are concerned that the construction of this home will destabilize the hillside and increase the risk of landslides. We are also concerned about the potential for fire hazards and flooding.
The impact on the environment. The proposed home will require the removal of several oak trees, which are protected by law. These trees provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, including deer and hawks. We are concerned about the impact that the removal of these trees will have on the local environment.
The impact the construction of this size will have on our personal health & well being. 167
Here are a few concerns : a) The arid conditions and the high winds on hillside will fly all the dust and construction material in our clear air, causing breathing/asthmatic issues for the older & less immune b) The big construction trucks will pose a major hazard to all the kids including several elementary on our street who walk to school, not to mention the traffic congestion it will cause c) Working from home is the only option for many of us with kids in school and inability to perform work properly due to sound levels risks our job and therefore our livelihood. d) We have young daughters whose safety & privacy will feel threatened by several construction workers in the area.
We urge the commission to reject the proposed home construction. We believe that this project is too risky and will have a negative impact on the environment and the safety of our community.
Sincerely,
Kopal & Madhu Nallu
2809 Monte Cresta Dr, Belmont.
168
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: Nov 21 Agenda item: 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Dr. - Development Review Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:50:26 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
From: Casey Krueger
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 9:15 PM
To: x-City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>; Planning Comm <[email protected]> Subject: Nov 21 Agenda item: 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Dr. - Development Review Casey Krueger
2811 Monte Cresta Dr.
Belmont
Planning Commission Nov 21, 2023
Public Hearing for 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive - Development Review (Complex Project, Agenda item 6A) - Public Comment
I strongly disagree to granting any exceptions requested for this development.
I am concerned for many reasons, including the lack of details regarding the plan and transparency. I am particularly concerned that the current proposal ignores the state requirement in the Seismic Hazard Act and does not fully analyze landslide risks that could lead to devastation to the neighbors and my house. I am concerned about drainage, erosion control, and slope stability of a shared slope to my property. Granting exceptions to proceed could lead to litigation in the future if the new construction results in a landslide or damage.
The house is also too big for the site and slope. How does it compare to other homes that are built with similar slope steepness? This new building construction would affect my private and public view and therefore decrease the value of my home. It is not fair or safe to grant exceptions at the detriment of all other current Belmont residents.
Exceeding the 800’ cul-de-sac is not appropriate and not consistent with emergency access requirements. We had to evacuate a few years ago because of a wildfire in the area. It is already harder to obtain insurance given the high fire danger zone. I am concerned about 169
future financing for the maintenance of a fire turnaround with a 10 foot retaining wall. Will that block the pediatrician access to the trail?
This is a complex project that needs careful consideration and openness to all who would be impacted. I have lived here for over 11 years and am concerned about the negative impact to my home and family/young kids.
Regards,
Casey Krueger
170
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: Opposition to Kraft extension proposal - 11/21/23 Public Hearing, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:51:08 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
1. Wildfire planning
2. Geotech, landslide and storm water
3. Compliance with San Juan Hills Area Plan and the Municipal Code
4. Concern with City transparency
Thanks,
Joyce
171
From: Kristin Mercer
To: Brian Kulich; Planning Comm; Mark Gurevich; David Kramer; Nathan Majeski; Peter Meier; x-community development; x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive development review application Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 9:43:27 AM
Dear Commissioners,
The materials and scope of critical issues for your review of this project are enormous, with hundreds of pages of complex data. Now imagine you are a neighbor of the project and you just gained access to all these materials on the Friday before Thanksgiving, giving you 3 days to evaluate it all. And now consider that key documents – the engineering report that underlies the entire feasibility of the project – are not available for you to see. And now consider that after years of unexplained delay this hearing is scheduled on the day when residents are most likely to be out of town or consumed with school/work/family events. Now you will understand why residents cry foul, and whispers of collusion are in the air. I served on Belmont’s planning commission for 9 years, and when faced with similarly complex projects we always held multiple hearings. This is not a criticism of, nor undue burden on, the applicant. This application is in fact multiple projects – the road and the home site would normally be considered separately. Failure to disclose key documents to the public alone warrants continuation. If you believe in inclusivity and transparency, as our city officials claim, you will ask the applicant to disclose ALL engineering documents, and then continue this project until January to allow the public equitable time to evaluate the hundreds of pages of data.
Finally, I would like to echo the appraisal of former Commissioner Herbach, that this road extension is a violation of both the intent and the provisions of the San Juan Area Plan. Dead-end-roads are a documented and proven fire (any emergency) safety hazard. Plus, any excavation/fill on these unstable hills invites problems with drainage and landslides. We have many examples of such in recent years in both San Juan and Western Hills, where the geological study revealed equally unstable soils. The applicant is entitled to choose such a risk with his property. But damages to surrounding properties -from the dangerous dead-end road, fire, flooding or landslide - will expose the City to potential litigation. And proof of existing hazards that the city ignored or underestimated will undermine city defenses. I would not want that on my head.
I urge you to deny this request for a road extension, as the commission I served on did with Damon Campbell. We could not make the findings for road extension then, and the findings with this application are the same.
Thank you for your service,
Kristin Mercer
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Herbach
Date: Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 11:08 AM
Subject: Planning Commission Nov 21, 2023 Agenda Item 6A Public Hearing for 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive
To: <[email protected]>, planningcomm <[email protected]>, 172
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Planning Commission Nov 21, 2023 Agenda Item 6A Public Hearing for 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive - Development Review (Complex Project) “To consider a Hillside Road Improvement Plan, Single-Family Design Review, …”
Neither the Hillside Road Improvement Plan nor the Single-Family Design is attached to the Agenda released to the Public at 3:13PM on Friday.
We have been told that “A physical copy of the civil and design drawings being considered by the Planning Commission will also be available during the public hearing for review.” The Planning Commission however has received a copy of the Project Plans - See Staff Report Attachment 19.
Project Plans – (Commission Only)
The Public cannot be expected to make cogent written comments on the project without reviewing the main documents i.e. Hillside Road Improvement Plan and Single-Family Design which were not provided with the agenda released at 3:13 on Friday (when the following week much of the public is not available since it is Thanksgiving week).
The Public must choose between reviewing documents at the Public Hearing, or paying attention to the Planning Commission, staff and applicant presentations as their only opportunity to see the documents is during the Public Hearing.
We have also been told that “…absent the engineer of records permission, local planning agencies are generally prohibited from posting copies of civil engineer and design drawings on the internet.”
Has the City requested the engineer of records permission for attaching the civil engineer and design drawings to the agenda and posting the same on the internet? Has that permission been denied?
As the City Notice of Public Hearing states that attendance may be via Zoom, how can the Public that connects via Zoom review documents that are physically present at the city council chambers but not available on the internet during the Public Hearing? Why is the Monte Cresta project receiving disparate treatment? I don’t recall during my years as a Planning Commissioner and Planning Commission Chairman ever seeing a project agenda without all the relevant documents attached for Public review. That has always been City policy 173
and has continued to be so during the five most recent projects involving Design Reviews: See agendas for meetings on 12/12/2022, 2/21/2023, 3/7/2023, 4/4/2023, and 5/2/2023. Additionally you need look no further than the other item (6B) on Tuesday’s agenda to see a project that does include all the relevant attachments for an appropriate Public Hearing. The subject project (6A), which is subject to CEQA which has a goal to inform government decision makers and the public, appears to have been singled out as one where vital information is being withheld from the Public thereby precluding informed discretionary action by the City.
For all the above reasons, it is requested that the Public Hearing for agenda item 6A be continued until a date uncertain when the Public has the ability to make a thorough review and cogent written comments based upon a staff report with all the necessary attachments which, absent the currently missing (from Public view) Hillside Road Improvement Plan and the Single-Family Design, the Public cannot do.
Virus-free.www.avast.com
174
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Scott Rennie; Rob Gill
Subject: FW: PC mtg Nov 21, 2023, Agenda item 6A, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 6:01:49 PM
Attachments: HERBACH Written Comments 21Nov2023 Agenda item 6A.pdf image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
FYI. Thanks
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
From: Mark Herbach
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 5:40 PM
To: Brian Kulich <[email protected]>; Planning Comm <[email protected]>; Mark Gurevich <[email protected]>; David Kramer <[email protected]>; Nathan Majeski <[email protected]>; Peter Meier <[email protected]>; x-community development <[email protected]>; x-City Clerk's Office <[email protected]> Subject: PC mtg Nov 21, 2023, Agenda item 6A, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Dear Belmont Planning Commissioners,
We, being residents of Belmont since 1977, are submitting this as a public written comment on the Public Hearing for the 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 2023. Please enter this into the written record - and we respectively ask that you take our comments and concerns into consideration as you deliberate on this proposed project.
We believe that the project proposal as being presented to the Planning Commission for review prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation to the City Council has numerous areas where it conflicts with City and State laws. Some of these are discussed in the staff report and its numerous attachments, although some of the most relevant documents have not been attached to the staff report for the public to access. In addition, some of the conflicts are ignored and/or omitted entirely in the staff report. And, the conclusions that are made by staff to 175
recommend approval of this project are in many cases not supported by the facts and evidence presented.
We have attached detailed comments identifying numerous errors and problems with the proposal as presented. Also, in a separate email sent on November 19, 2023, I expressed specific and serious concerns about the openness and transparency of this process. Those concerns remain. Meaningful public input as well as the process used to achieve that input should be an integral part of this hearing. In addition, having been a Belmont Planning Commissioner and Chairman, one of my concerns is about the volume of information you are being asked to assimilate for the Public Hearing.
In light of all of the above, it is our hope that all of these issues are fully explored at subsequent hearings as appropriate.
Etta and I thank you in advance for your service to Belmont and for your careful consideration of the matter.
Sincerely,
Mark & Etta Herbach
176
Nov 20, 2023
As residents of Belmont for over 45 years, we appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Notice of Public Hearing - 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive dated November 9, 2023 for Appl. No. PA2015-0057
Mark & Etta Herbach
Briefly stated: We oppose the approval of the application and staff report for the following reasons:
A) Neither the Hillside Road Improvement Plan nor the Single-Family Design is attached to the Agenda released to the Public at 3:13PM on Friday.
We have been told that “A physical copy of the civil and design drawings being considered by the Planning Commission will also be available during the public hearing for review.” The Planning Commission however has received a copy of the Project Plans - See Staff Report Attachment 19. Project Plans – (Commission Only) The Public cannot be expected to make cogent written comments on the project without reviewing the main documents i.e. Hillside Road Improvement Plan and Single-Family Design which were not provided with the agenda released at 3:13 on Friday (when the following week much of the public is not available since it is Thanksgiving week).
The Public must choose between reviewing documents at the Public Hearing, or paying attention to the Planning Commission, staff and applicant presentations as their only opportunity to see the documents is during the Public Hearing.
We have also been told that “…absent the engineer of records permission, local planning agencies are generally prohibited from posting copies of civil engineer and design drawings on the internet.”
It is not clear that the City requested the engineer of records permission for attaching the civil engineer and design drawings to the agenda and posting the same on the internet. Has that permission been denied?
As the City Notice of Public Hearing states that attendance may be via Zoom, how can the Public that connects via Zoom review documents that are physically present at the city council chambers but not available on the internet during the Public Hearing?
177
This is counter to all past City procedures where full project drawings, including civil engineering plans, design drawings, architects plans, etc. are made available well before a hearing and are freely available to the public, including online copies that can be downloaded and studied. See numerous examples of plans available online now on the City's website for past PC meetings as well as posted on the City website under Major Projects. The online agenda for the Tuesday PC meeting also contains a second public hearing where online plans are freely available with no copy restrictions and no copyright claim.
The subject project (6A), which is subject to CEQA which has a goal to inform government decision makers and the public, appears to have been singled out as one where vital information is being withheld from the Public thereby precluding informed discretionary action by the City.
This project is receiving disparate treatment compared to any other project application.
178
B) Applicant may not be complying with City Guidance
Neighborhood Outreach
Guidance requires neighborhood outreach. Outreach was performed more than 6 years ago. Since that time applicants plans have undergone numerous iterations such that what was discussed at the November 4 2017 meeting may no longer be applicable to the project. Shouldn’t outreach be more current?
Residential Design Guidelines
Staff report page 8 states that “the proposal is substantially compliant with the Residential Design Guidelines.” This means that it is NOT fully compliant with the Residential Design Guidelines. What aspect of the proposal is not compliant? The public has no way of knowing since as described above Design Review plans are not part of the package the public sees.
179
C) To adopt a hillside road improvement plan, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council regarding each of the following findings (See Staff report pp 17-18) which we will demonstrate are incorrect.
1. The road improvement plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the San Juan Hills Area Plan; and,
2. Drainage, erosion control and slope stability have been fully addressed in the design of the road improvements; and,
3. Access to abutting properties has been adequately considered in the design of the road improvements; and,
4. If the project is for a cul-de-sac, the length and turnaround design are appropriate and consistent with emergency access requirements; and If the plan is for an unimproved road segment, the City Council must have made all of the above findings in the affirmative, plus:
5. Recommendations for access to properties abutting the part of the road which would not be improved under the plan are reasonable and consistent with the purposes and policies of the San Juan Hills Area Plan.
Detailed analysis is provided below:
180
1. The road improvement plan is NOT consistent with the purposes and policies of the San Juan Hills Area Plan
The City adopted the SJHAP in 1988 with a primary goal of regulating land use and development in the area and solve the problems that had been created by past development practices. An Area Plan is considered part of the General Plan and development projects must be consistent with the plan.
There are two types of Road Improvement Plans allowed. The SJHAP and the Municipal plan provide clear guidelines. Type (a): Complete Road – i.e. all 1800 feet of unimproved Monte Cresta.
This is NOT the current proposal. The current proposal is for a Type (b) Road segment with cul-de-sac.
Applicant is proposing ‘type (b): a road segment however he has NOT resolved the design and financing of the entire Monte Cresta unimproved road right of way. He has presented a plan for a complete road from more than a decade ago and prepared a back of the envelope cost estimate with faulty assumptions such as:
“Another obstacle to the through road is the fact that a developer at the other end of Monte Cresta is proposing a 300’ road segment, which due to geological hazards, would serve 4 homes. This would reduce the remaining homes that would require a through road to only 2. Even if you cut the road cost in half for the remaining road, which it wouldn't be because it will be 80% of the full through road over the worst geo hazards, that would still be $2.5 million per home.” The cost analysis for the through road can only consider cost to be born by houses along the through road if a through road plan has been provided.
Furthermore, it is inappropriate to include a future project (Huang application at the other end of Monte Cresta), which may or may not be built, in the cost analysis for this project.
Previously the applicant stated that "I cannot begin to speak to the possible financing or scheduling of the possible future extension as I have no financial interest or control of this portion of the possible future work.“
181
He has also stated that it is ludicrous of the city to ask for what the Code requires and he incorrectly states that a through road is not feasible as the only stated reason for the infeasibility is cost of the through road "So, it is obvious that the through road is not feasible so to ask me to give a schedule and financing plan for it is ludicrous particularly when I have no ownership in any parcel connected to it.“
It is indisputable that the legislative intent was to not allow incremental (i.e. step by step) extension of the unimproved road.
See City Council Resolution No. 6523.
Hence based upon the above analysis it is shown that the road improvement plan is NOT consistent with the purposes and policies of the San Juan Hills Area Plan.
182
2. Drainage, erosion control and slope stability have NOT been fully addressed in the design of the road improvements. a) Staff report page 10 Stormwater Drainage is not consistent with the analysis provided in attachment 18 Storm Drain Technical Memo. The staff report makes no mention of a backup generator being installed with the house, so that the pumps will continue to operate in any outage. b) Evaluation of Landslide risk was added to the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act after the Loma Prieta Earthquake demonstrated the substantial risk of earthquake triggered landslides and the demonstrated inadequacy of existing building regulation throughout the State. The Act included a requirement that the CA Geological Survey map landslide risk and identify Zones of Required Investigation. The Act also required the development of mandatory procedures and guidelines for the analysis and reporting. In 2018 the San Mateo Quadrangle Map, including Belmont, was officially released and this project is within the Zone of Required Investigation under the State law.
The Geotech analysis and reports, as well as the City geologist peer review make no mention of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act requirements.
Based on the mandatory procedures and guidelines – a quantitative slope stability analysis would almost certainly be required. This results in computed “factors of safety” for landslide triggering risk under seismic and static conditions
Other projects in Belmont have included “quantitative slope stability analysis” as per the guidelines including Crystal Springs Uplands (where the downhill risk was Belmont’s Water Dog Lake Open Space), and more recently the Belmont Ave. apartments.
Hence based upon the above analysis drainage, erosion control and slope stability have NOT been fully addressed in the design of the road improvements.
183
3. Access to abutting properties has NOT been adequately considered in the design of the road improvements.
Code Section 7-13 (e) (9) (b) 2 which requires a plan with recommendations regarding access to properties abutting the part of the road which will not be improved under the proposed project, including evidence of support for the recommendations from affected property owners has not been complied with.
This requirement has been acknowledged as far back as 2002.
At a Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday February 5, 2002 discussing Hillside Roadway Improvement Plans, Commissioner Torre asked
“if owners along the entire paper road must be considered, or does an applicant only need to consider the evidence of support from owners of the property abutting the portion that is being considered for incremental expansion.
PP deMelo stated that support must be obtained from people along the road to be improved as well as support from people who would be excluded from the segment.”
The staff report on page 12 paragraph Road Access states the following “The road extension would provide driveway access to the proposed development site, and potentially provide access to the adjacent vacant lot zoned HRO-2 (Hillside Residential and Open Space) west of the new road terminus.”
The staff report however is silent regarding access to properties abutting the part of the road which will not be improved under the proposed project and evidence of support from affected property owners.
Notwithstanding what the Planning Commission was told 21 years ago staff has deemed the requirement for evidence of support from all affected landowners to be unenforceable (see staff report attachment 16 Categorical Exemption Evaluation and resolution page 4).
184
A review of City Council minutes for the past 10 years reveals no recommendation from city staff for a revision to, nor any adoption by the City Council of, a change to Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-b-2.
Staff is trying make policy for this project; what is the legal authority for this? Staff appears to be illegally usurping the authority of our duly elected City Council.
Until such time as the City Council changes the Code to reflect the staff’s opinion, the requirements of Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-b-2 should be enforced.
Hence based upon the above analysis it is shown that Access to abutting properties has NOT been adequately considered in the design of the road improvements.
185
4. If the project is for a cul-de-sac, the length and turnaround design are NOT appropriate and NOT consistent with emergency access requirements.
The existing Monte Cresta Drive from its intersection with Barclay Way to the current terminus is 800’ which is the maximum allowed without an exception being granted. Allowing a longer cul-de-sac in a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area that has a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) designation from Cal Fire is inappropriate, even if it could be done. Safety should be a high priority. Let us not forget that the area in question is a few hundred feet from the site of a wildfire a few years ago; that wildfire necessitated a helicopter with a bucket scooping water from Water Dog Lake and dropping it on the fire to extinguish it. Further, as shown in the following table, the maximum cul-de-sac length of 800’ already exceeds the allowable lengths in nearby cities (many of which do not have any Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas with a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) designation from Cal Fire).
Allowable cul-de-sac lengths
Belmont 800'
SSF 500'
Hillsborough 500'
San Carlos 500'
Mountain View 400’* *700' in R1, R2
Los Altos 400'
Sunnyvale 400'
Menlo Park 350'
Palo Alto 350'
Brisbane 300'
Atherton 300'
Redwood City 250'
Burlingame 250'
186
Exceeding the 800’ requirement in Belmont’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas with a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) designation from Cal Fire is NOT APPROPRIATE
Staff Report attachment 14 San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMCFD) and Public Works Department (DPW) examines six factors in determining whether an exception for a longer (than 800’) cul-de-sac may be granted. They determine that an exception may be granted. However the analysis of factor 3 Type of construction of buildings (e.g., fire-retardant roofs and siding, interior sprinklers) is incorrect. The report states that Construction for the proposed dwelling will be conditioned to meet Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure) of the California Building Code and that the home construction includes an automatic fire sprinkler system.
Merely looking at the proposed house when considering an extension of an existing road in inappropriate. The intent is to apply the analysis to all the existing buildings on the 800’ road. i.e. The houses identified in factor 2 Number of lots/houses/occupants to be served by the cul-de-sac Hence based upon the above analysis the length is NEITHER appropriate NOR consistent with emergency access requirements.
187
If the plan is for an unimproved road segment, the City Council must have made all of the above findings in the affirmative, plus the following finding which is INCORRECT:
5. Recommendations for access to properties abutting the part of the road which would not be improved under the plan are reasonable and consistent with the purposes and policies of the San Juan Hills Area Plan.
The staff report is silent on this.
The project resolution at page 17 states that
“A conceptual plan to access properties along the remainder of unimproved Monte Cresta was submitted with the project application. The plan provides recommendations for access to properties abutting the part of the road which would not be improved under the plan along the route.” Said conceptual plan is not part of the package under review and thus neither I nor the City Council can use informed judgement to make a determination.
Hence a determination CANNOT be made that access to properties abutting the part of the road which would not be improved under the plan are reasonable and consistent with the purposes and policies of the San Juan Hills Area Plan.
188
In conclusion,
1. The road improvement plan is NOT consistent with the purposes and policies of the San Juan Hills Area Plan; and,
2. Drainage, erosion control and slope stability have NOT been fully addressed in the design of the road improvements; and,
3. Access to abutting properties has NOT been adequately considered in the design of the road improvements; and,
4. (Since) the project is for a cul-de-sac, the length and turnaround design are NOT appropriate and NOT consistent with emergency access requirements; and
(Since) the plan is for an unimproved road segment, the City Council must have made all of the above findings in the affirmative, plus:
5. Recommendations for access to properties abutting the part of the road which would not be improved under the plan are NOT reasonable and consistent with the purposes and policies of the San Juan Hills Area Plan.
Based upon the above, a CEQA Class 32 Exemption –
In-Fill Development Project cannot be approved since
the project DOES NOT MEET the following required
condition
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable
general plan designation and all applicable general
plan policies as well as with applicable zoning
designation and regulations
189
From: Louise Morin
To: x-community development; x-City Clerk"s Office; Planning Comm Subject: 2800 block of Monte Cresta Development review (complex project) Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 10:28:44 AM
Pierre St-Hilaire, Ph.D.
Louise Morin, B.Sc.
2712 All View way
Belmont
Planning Commission Nov 21, 2023
Public Hearing for 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive - Development Review (Complex Project)
We strongly disagree to granting any exceptions requested for this development. 1) FAR transfer does not comply with existing hillside policies in the Belmont General plan, and the San Juan Hills Area Plan, zoning code section 4.7.11 (b) and (c) and the existing HRO-2 Floor area ratio standards table of the zoning code.
The receiving site (043-165-180) has an average slope of 48.7% and is 9,137 sq. ft. and does not meet the minimum net lot size of 403,333 sq. ft. The maximum home size for substandard lots with over 45% average slope is 900 sq. ft.
The transfer of floor area from the two other lots to add 2400 sq. ft to increase the home size to 3,299 is illegal. The receiving lot does not comply with the requirement that it should be a more suitable site for a home compared to the sending lot. The sending lots are probably around 44% (based on the slope cut of the full road document which states the degrees closest to these 2 lots). All lots are in the San Juan Hills area on an undeveloped road section. The purpose of the floor area transfer is to allow property owners to transfer out of the area that are impossible or difficult to build while allowing the sending sites to be preserved by a conservation easement. It is not intended to be used to overbuild a steep sloped site. The request for an exception should be denied.
In approving a conditional use permit for transferred floor area, the planning commission must make six findings. For example, the commission must find that the proposed transfer will result in a better pattern of development from the standpoint of reduced grading, fewer street/utility extensions, and improved building site locations. The Commission must also find that the sending site will be protected from future development by a conservation easement and that management of the sending site be adequately provided for.
In addition to the transfer of floor area, the owners of property in the HRO-2 Zoning District can transfer units between properties in the HRO-2 zone via a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission. The receiving site must be at least 20,000 square feet in area.
Our city staff have gone above and beyond in the past to accommodate land owners but in this case, they are not obligated to accommodate the excessive requests of the applicant to the detriment of all the other Belmont residents. The intents of our policies, municipal codes, ordinances and regulations should be communicated clearly to avoid such outrageous demands in the future by the applicant, and our city attorney should dutifully enforce the rules that our general plan calls for. It is difficult to understand why they would recommend to adopt a resolution to continue with this development project.
In creating the Hillside Residential and Open Space (HRO) zoning district, Belmont recognized the need to minimize the destruction of unique terrain features which are important to the character of the City. Belmont also acknowledged that there are geologic problems, soils hazards, and steep slopes that generate public safety concerns. To deal with these issues, Belmont concluded that hillside development should preserve the natural terrain and provide a density compatible with slope limitations.
190
Belmont does not gain anything by granting exceptions to allow this project to continue. It creates a bad precedent that could lead to litigation in the future if the house was to landslide into the houses below. One can read the news about the Rolling Hills estate, in Palo Verdes Peninsula, where 12 houses fell in a landslide last July due to an undiscovered leaky pipe. The water weakened the clay layers weaving though the bedrock. This is one of the dangers of building on slope sides that took people by surprise. Let this be a lesson for us. 2) Incomplete Geological Study
As engineers, it is our opinion that the geological study of the site where the home would be built is lacking. The two bores were on top of the Monte Cresta trail in the study for the full road feasibility. No bores have been analyzed for this specific project site. They did not go beyond 10.2 feet but the project calls for reinforced concrete piers at least 16 inches that should extend 15 feet below and 12 feet into the bedrock.
The report also dates from a drought period. We have had significant rain events in the past year that can affect the area. It seems like the applicant has tried to cut cost and reused an old related report instead of doing due diligence for his project.
The project requires major grading. It is not clear where the soil that needs to be replaced to build the turnaround would be moved to.
I would like to highlight a section of the report that states the same concerns we have:
The primary geologic and geotechnical concerns for construction of the proposed residence and fire truck turnaround are:
1. the presence of the existing wedge-shaped fill along the southern side of the Monte Cresta Drive right-of-way;
2. the presence of the thin undocumented fill in the eastern portion of the site;
3. the steepness of the site for access for construction of foundation piers;
4. the need to dispose of roof water and storm water runoff on the site (rather than into an existing storm drain system); and
5. the probability of severe ground shaking at the site during a major earthquake in the area.
3) Unsecured Financing
Regarding financing, I would expect that Mr. Kraft needs to get some agreement with Mr Campbell for the maintenance cost of the road extension as he is the most impacted by this addition.
It may also be useful to know that Belmont has 800 ft limit on cul-de-sac, which is more than double what most cities in the bay area have as a limit. Monte Cresta cul-de-sac is currently at 800 ft (not 1056 ft as stated in the report). I can understand why the fire marshall is endorsing adding a fire turnabout in this area. This is an issue that should be dealt with, considering that the city had approved Damon Campbell house to be built there.
The request for an exception to BCC 7-13 (e)(7) for this extension not to have a sidewalk would mean that a four cars parking would be needed for this home because on the street parking will not be available. The plans call for a two cars garage only. Another exception that has not been requested by the applicant.
Considering that climate change has only reinforced the importance of enforcing regulations of our general plans, it is of the outermost importance for this project to comply. 191
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: PC Meeting 11/21/2023: Agenda item 6A, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:50:01 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
From: thomas.zackor
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 8:49 PM
To: Brian Kulich <[email protected]>; Planning Comm <[email protected]>; Mark Gurevich <[email protected]>; David Kramer <[email protected]>; Nathan Majeski <[email protected]>; Peter Meier <[email protected]>; x-community development <[email protected]>; x-City Clerk's Office <[email protected]> Cc: 'Shirley Zackor' <[email protected]>
Subject: PC Meeting 11/21/2023: Agenda item 6A, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Appl. No. PA2015-0057
Public Hearing – 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive – Development Review (Complex Project) Belmont Planning Commission:
In response to the November 21st 2023 Pubic Hearing pertaining to the Complex Project I provide written input for the Planning Commission to evaluate if/how to move forward:
1. The Complex Proposal in its current state does not comply with Belmont Fire Code which is of utmost concern considering material climate change in the State of California. In fact, I encourage the Planning Commission to adopt a climate forward mindset where current and future climate change caused risks are factored into the decision if/how the Complex Project moves forward. Exceptions to the 800 fee length cap and turnaround radius of 32 feet shall be studied with utmost care and climate forward mindset – not only based on the single opinion of one fire chief. Just because there may be other Cul-de-sacs in Belmont that may not be up to Code does not mean such exemptions should become the norm – on the contrary, it requires a much more informed assessment and calibration across a wider range of midpeninsula towns.
2. The location of the proposed single-family structure is on a steep hillside with a changed erosion pattern as witnessed by myself during the winter 2022/2023. During this time, I noticed several minor mudslides between Monte Cresta and Alhambra as well as a major unexpected mudslide making San Juan Canyon Blvd impassable for over a month. Previously documented environmental review and design studies may not be up to current environmental circumstances and any change to the delicate land area between Monte Cresta and Alhambra Drive shall be re-examined bearing in mind current and forward-looking 192
climate driven changes in weather. Without such planning approach I am highly concerned about increased erosion and landslide risk to my own property and I do see any clarity how Belmont City Code (BCC) Section 7-12 has been addressed by the applicant. Similarly, it unclear how the applicant addressed BCC Section 7-17 which also adds to my concern of potential drainage risk or overflow in case of increased extreme precipitation patterns.
Reference: 2022 Report: Indicators of Climate Change in California | OEHHA
3. It is unclear to me how it is legal to acquire this parcel for development and expect more clarity from the City of Belmont to clearly outline how the proposed parcel for the Complex Project meets the zoning code requirements under the State Subdivision Map Act.
4. Timing and scope of information disclosed is to the public is poor at best. Other than vague references to “Categorial Exemption Evaluation” per the letter sent by the City of Belmont there’s no transparent information disclosure on which ground the applicant seeks exemptions or waivers to Belmont City Code.
In this context, any further progress for the Complex Project shall be put on hold until all matters raised above are comprehended in the evaluation. In addition, given the lack of public disclosure prior to the November 21st 2023 meeting I request further review time for the citizens of Belmont to internalize and process all of the information brought forth during the public hearing.
Sincerely,
Thomas Zackor
Belmont resident and owner of 2816 Alhambra Drive
193
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: Monte Cresta project
Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:49:31 AM
FYI. Thanks
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren C. Gibson
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 7:09 PM
To: Planning Comm <[email protected]>
Subject: Monte Cresta project
Hello all
I have not studied the project in depth, but some of my neighbors' missives to you make it pretty clear that there are many loose ends to put it mildly. It would be most unfortunate if you pushed this project through with so many issues hanging fire. I hope you will continue it.
Warren Gibsoon
194
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: PC mtg Nov 21, 2023, regarding the proposed development at 2800 Monte Cresta Dr Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:50:50 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
From: jennifer lai
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 11:29 PM
To: Brian Kulich <[email protected]>; Planning Comm <[email protected]>; Mark Gurevich <[email protected]>; David Kramer <[email protected]>; Nathan Majeski <[email protected]>; Peter Meier <[email protected]>; x-community development <[email protected]>; x-City Clerk's Office <[email protected]> Subject: PC mtg Nov 21, 2023, regarding the proposed development at 2800 Monte Cresta Dr Dear Belmont Planning Commissioners,
I hope that you are well, and thank you for your work on behalf of our community.
I am writing regarding the Public Hearing for the 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 2023.
I have concerns that the proposed project does not apply with state and city code.
Additionally, I am concerned that it poses safety risks to our neighbors.
Potential code and process violations:
1. Proposal violates the San Juan Hills Area Plan, Policy 10, because it fails to provide a cost analysis of a potential through road. It’s inappropriate to proceed with a cul de sac plan without having an informed estimate for the 195
through road
2. Additionally, the proposal fails to satisfy Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9 as required documents and analysis does not appear to be complete
3. Lack of neighborhood outreach – I was never informed about this project from the proposed builder, nor have I seen any design, drawings, or plans. I feel that the public has not been adequately informed as required under CEQA Importantly, I am also concerned that potential slope instability and soil erosion has not been adequately analyzed or addressed in the design of road improvements:
1. The Geotech analysis and reports and City geologist peer review do not adequately evaluate landslide risk in a way that meets the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act requirements. Based on the mandatory procedures and guidelines, a quantitative slope stability analysis is required. Additionally, the Planning Department should fully evaluate the project for compliance with the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and that the proposal fully complies with the requirements of the Act.
2. Our area is a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and the proposed cul de sac does not comply with emergency access requirements
Ultimately, I urge you to consider the safety of all neighbors involved.
My property, located downhill from the proposed development, is supported by a roughly 15-foot-high retaining wall integral to the foundation of my house. Given this, any soil instability, erosion, landslide, or even excessive water runoff poses a serious risk. Such events could lead to a collapse of the retaining wall, potentially causing instability in my house itself.
In light of these risks, I seek clarification and assurance from the city regarding indemnification against risks and expenses should this development lead to damage or loss:
1. Will the city provide indemnification to my family for any risks and expenses that may arise from potential damages linked to the issues I have outlined in relation to this proposed development?
2. In the event that the development causes damage to my retaining wall or house foundation, will the city accept financial responsibility for the necessary repairs?
3. 196
Additionally, will the city extend this indemnification to all existing homes in the community, covering risks and expenses that may arise from potential damages associated with the concerns I have detailed regarding this proposed development?
These questions are crucial, not only for the protection of my property but also for ensuring the overall safety and stability of the neighborhood. I look forward to a prompt and detailed response addressing these concerns.
Respectfully,
Your neighbors, the Lai family (Jennifer and Jonathan Lai) 2936 Alhambra Dr
197
From: Justine Eller
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Justine and Jim Eller Response to 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive Public Hearing and Community Forum Nov 21st, 2023:
Saturday, November 18, 2023 10:13:32 PM
November 18th, 2023
Belmont City Council and Planning Commission:
Dear Leaders:
We have lived in our lovely Belmont Canyon for almost 30 years. With this we have seen a lot of change which is now becoming a concern as what is a true focus by our Belmont leadership.
This direction below is putting our community in harm’s way at a standpoint as to fire, landslides / additional land instability, environmental, and the ability to insure our property in future years.
Wildfire planning - the current proposal does not comply with the Fire Code; requires questionable exceptions from the Municipal Code; ignores the CA AG guidance to cities to address the problems we all see with devastating wildfires in CA.Wildfire planning - the current proposal does not comply with the Fire Code; requires questionable exceptions from the Municipal Code; ignores the CA AG guidance to cities to address the problems we all see with devastating wildfires in CA.
Geotech / Landslide / Stormwater - the current proposal ignores the State requirement in the Seismic Hazard Act and does not fully analyze landslide risks that could lead to devastation to the neighbors.
Complex Project - there is clear evidence that the proposal is not compliant with a number of State and City laws; requiring numerous exceptions and variances; and the City is not fully disclosing information to the public that will be affected and that is necessary to evaluate and comment on the plan in a public setting as required by law. Why is this being rushed? Compliance with the San Juan Hills Area Plan and the Municipal Code - Compliance is a legal requirement under State law. Shouldn't residents be given the opportunity to present evidence to be judged by City decision makers?
The legality of the Parcels under the Subdivision Map Act and Floor Area transfer - This is at minimum a policy question. This needs to be discussed openly and transparently and the City should not blindly do the developers bidding. Residents have a clear interest in the outcome and have legal rights.
Openness and Transparency - Why has the City created suddenly, without explanation, and contrary to past practices a new rule that prohibits copying of the relevant documents in this proposal. What is being hidden? Is this in the interest of anyone other than the developer? City staff determined that parts of the Municipal Code are unenforceable - What is the legal authority for this? Why is this not arbitrary and capricious? Can this be done arbitrarily by City staff for anything? Laws are changed with a legislative process, not the dictate of City staff.
Why is the city enabling this developer to move and control a meeting when they know the community is going to be out of town or hosting family during the Holiday and their hopeful time away? Truly, dismissing these issue exposes the City of Belmont to potential litigation. 198
Best:
Justine and Jim Eller
2805 Monte Cresta Drive
199
From: J Marshall
To: Planning Comm; Brian Kulich; Mark Gurevich; David Kramer; Nathan Majeski; Peter Meier Cc: x-City Clerk"s Office; x-community development
Subject: Kraft proposal to extend Monte Cresta - analysis and concerns Date: Sunday, November 19, 2023 4:48:24 PM
Attachments: Kraft proposal to extend Monte Cresta - analysis and concerns - November 19, 2023.pdf Dear Belmont Planning Commissioners,
I am submitting this as a public written comment on the Public Hearing for the 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 2023. Please enter this into the written record - and I respectively ask that you take these comments and concerns into consideration as you deliberate on this proposed project.
I have been a resident of Belmont since 1987. I live on one of the sub-standard streets listed in the San Juan Hills Area Plan (SJHAP). I also own a vacant lot on the "unimproved" road.
Before I made the decision to purchase my home I bought a copy of the then draft SJHAP to understand the development rules Belmont was planning to adopt that could affect my property. Since that time I have made a concerted effort to keep up familiarity with the relevant laws, City actions, precedents, etc. I also had conversations with a number of the people in the City around the time the SJHAP was written and adopted and who were involved in its creation. I think I can safely say that I have some familiarity and knowledge on this topic. I think I have done my due diligence regarding Belmont and its laws. How the City manages development projects such as this will have significant effects on many residents - including me. The City's laws, and how they are carried out, must protect the rights of all property owners - developers and current residents included.
I sincerely believe that the project proposal as being presented to the Planning Commission for review before a recommendation is made to the City Council has numerous areas where it conflicts with City and State laws. Some of these are discussed in the staff report and other documents (and some of the most relevant documents as copies are not being released to the public), some are ignored and/or omitted entirely. The conclusions that are made by staff to recommend approval of this project are in many cases not supported by the facts and evidence presented.
This is detailed and complicated. This is the first time in more than a decade that a San Juan Hills Area Plan (SJHAP) road improvement plan has even appeared before the City; the last adjudicated and approved road improvement plan approval goes back to 1995 with Ralston Ranch - more than 28 years ago. I think this predates the institutional memory of all current Belmont staff and representatives. So this is completely new to everyone involved. Because of this, special care needs to be taken in the review and evaluation process. This is not what I am seeing. I feel confident that you as fellow Belmont citizens believe it is important to fully and transparently disclose to the public the reasons for the approval (and its legality) of such a complicated and significant development project.
I have attached a detailed presentation identifying numerous errors and problems with the proposal as presented. In a separate email I also have expressed specific and serious concerns about the openness and transparency of this process and my questioning of its compliance with open government statutes. Beyond that, I really hope that you care about openness and communication with all Belmont residents. I know there are legal issues with ex parte communications on a quasi-judicial review - but let's find a way to communicate. 200
As an introduction to the presentation attached prepared by my neighbors in the "Save our Belmont Canyon and Monte Cresta/Alhambra” working group please let me highlight the following top level concerns:
Wildfire planning - the current proposal does not comply with the Fire Code; requires questionable exceptions from the Municipal Code; ignores the CA AG guidance to cities to address the problems we all see with devastating wildfires in CA.
Geotech / Landslide / Stormwater - the current proposal ignores the State requirement in the Seismic Hazard Act and does not fully analyze landslide risks that could lead to devastation to the neighbors.
Complex Project - there is clear evidence that the proposal is not compliant with a number of State and City laws; requires numerous exceptions and variances; and the City is not fully disclosing information to the public that will be affected and that is necessary to evaluate and comment on the plan in a public setting as required by law.
Why is this being rushed?
Compliance with the San Juan Hills Area Plan and the Municipal Code - Compliance is a legal requirement under State law. Shouldn't residents be given the opportunity to present evidence to be judged by City decision makers? The legality of the Parcels under the Subdivision Map Act and Floor Area transfer - This is at minimum a policy question. This needs to be discussed openly and transparently and the City should not blindly do the developers bidding. Residents have a clear interest in the outcome and have legal rights.
Openness and Transparency - Why has the City created suddenly, without explanation, and contrary to past practices a new rule that prohibits copying of the relevant documents in this proposal. What is being hidden? Is this in the interest of anyone other than the developer?
City staff determined that parts of the Municipal Code are unenforceable - What is the legal authority for this? Why is this not arbitrary and capricious? Can this be done arbitrarily by City staff for anything? Laws are changed with a legislative process, not the dictate of City staff.
I see a real problem in the City asking Planning Commissioners to digest all of this in one meeting. Fundamentally, my neighbors and I are in the position of disputing what staff is telling you. I do not have the expectation that my neighbors and I should be believed without question. I do have the hope that what my neighbors and I present includes facts that give you pause and leads to an open and honest forum to review and analyse this development proposal, its compliance with City and State statutes, and what it would mean for the City of Belmont's future. That is what "planning" should be, I think.
Thank you in advance for your service to Belmont (I served briefly on the PC some years ago) and attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeff Marshall
201
Kraft proposal to
extend Monte Cresta
– November 2023
Analysis and concerns with the project proposal as
presented to the Planning Commission for review –
Tuesday November 21, 2023
"Save our Belmont Canyon and Monte Cresta/Alhambra” working group Slide 1 --11/18/2023
202
Slide 2 11/15/2023
•Wildfire planning - the current proposal does not comply with the Fire Code; requires questionable exceptions from the Municipal Code; ignores the CA AG guidance to cities to address the problems we all see with devastating wildfires in CA. •Geotech / Landslide / Stormwater - the current proposal ignores the State requirement in the Seismic Hazard Act and does not fully analyze landslide risks that could lead to devastation to the neighbors. •Complex Project - there is clear evidence that the proposal is not compliant with a number of State and City laws; requires numerous exceptions and variances; and the City is not fully disclosing information to the public that will be affected and that is necessary to evaluate and comment on the plan in a public setting as required by law. Why is this being rushed? •Compliance with the San Juan Hills Area Plan and the Municipal Code - Compliance is a legal requirement under State law. Shouldn't residents be given the opportunity to present evidence to be judged by City decision makers? •The legality of the Parcels under the Subdivision Map Act and Floor Area transfer - This is at minimum a policy question. This needs to be discussed openly and transparently and the City should not blindly do the developers bidding. Residents have a clear interest in the outcome and have legal rights.
•Openness and Transparency - Why has the City created suddenly, without explanation, and contrary to past practices a new rule that prohibits copying of the relevant documents in this proposal. What is being hidden? Is this in the interest of anyone other than the developer? •City staff determined that parts of the Municipal Code are unenforceable - What is the legal authority for this? Why is this not arbitrary and capricious? Can this be done arbitrarily by City staff for anything? Laws are changed with a legislative process, not the dictate of City staff.
•Several insurers have already pulled out of California due to increasing number of fire hazards and landslides. Is city going to pick up the liability for these mishaps happening during construction in a prone area like this specially given all the lack of transparency? •Does the city not care about the little wildlife we have left in our area? There is a family of deer3 and a nest of hawks which lives under and in the Oak trees the builder is seeking permits to cut.
Key Issues
Slide 2 --11/18/2023
203
Slide 3 11/15/2023
Complex Project
This is labeled by the City as a Complex Project and has been in the works for a number of years. • Everyone except the public has the opportunity to review the two main documents - Hillside Road Improvement Plan and Single Family Design Review - in advance of the Public Hearing. • How can the Public be expected to make cogent written comments on the projects without reviewing the two main documents?
• Why must the Public choose between reviewing documents or paying attention to the Commission, staff and applicant presentations at the public hearing if their only opportunity to see the documents is during the Public Hearing?
• Also, as the city notice states that attendance may be via Zoom, how can the Zoomers review documents only available at the city council chambers?
• Please do not rush the public review process… The City needs to give the public the information to analyze and understand the proposed project, compare to the codes and past practices, and provide meaningful input. • The neighborhood outreach was in 2017. Shouldn’t that be re-done for the benefit of more recently moved in residents?
• The public should be given an opportunity to provide input for a complex project like this. One example – there is no mention of the required Dedication of land from the private developer to the City of Belmont. This project cannot proceed without that. Statutory dedications are solely controlled under the Subdivision Map Act. This is a clear demonstration that this proposal is not what it says it is and needs to be more carefully considered by City decision makers – not just the applicant and City staff.
Takeaways:
Slide 3 --11/18/2023
204
Slide 4 11/15/2023
San Juan Hills Area Plan – policy 10
The City adopted the SJHAP in 1988 with a primary goal of regulating land use and development in the area and solve the problems that had been created by past development practices. An Area Plan is considered part of the General Plan and development projects must be consistent with the plan.
Slide 4 --11/18/2023
205
Slide 5 11/15/2023
San Juan Hills Area Plan – policy 10
Type a. Complete Road – ie all 1800 feet of unimproved Monte Cresta. This is not the current proposal. Although, the applicant has provided the City with a possible complete road plan - and then states that it is infeasible – despite also claiming that it could be built.
There are two types of Road Improvement Plans allowed. The SJHAP and the Municipal plan provide clear guidelines for submission, consideration by the Planning Commission, and subsequent approval by the City Council Slide 5 --11/18/2023
206
Slide 6 11/15/2023
San Juan Hills Area Plan – policy 10
Requirements for Type b. Road segment with cul de sac – eg Kraft proposal as presented Slide 6 --11/18/2023
207
Slide 7 11/15/2023
San Juan Hills Area Plan – policy 10
• Applicant Kraft is proposing ‘b’, a road segment
• Huang at the other end of Monte Cresta is also proposing a road segment • This proposed road improvement extends Monte Cresta by about 50 feet. • The remaining ~1750 feet of unimproved Monte Cresta is not addressed in this proposal • The City Council, based on Planning Commission recommendation, will have to make a “finding” that this proposed plan Resolves the Design and Financing of the entire Monte Cresta unimproved road right of way to determine that the proposal is consistent with the SJHAP • How can that be done? This proposal is inconsistent with past City actions on unimproved roads (Ralston Ranch, Naughton, and Ralston Frontage) under the SJHAP! What is meant by findings? How should they be determined to be adequate? “a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order.”
Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles - Supreme Court of California
Takeaways:
Slide 7 --11/18/2023
208
Slide 8 11/15/2023
San Juan Hills Area Plan – policy 10
• Kraft has NOT resolved the Design and Financing of the entire Monte Cresta unimproved road right of way.
• He has presented a plan for a complete road from more than a decade ago, shown that it can be built, estimated the cost, and then claims:
• "I cannot begin to speak to the possible financing or scheduling of the possible future extension as I have no financial interest or control of this portion of the possible future work.“
• Further he has stated that it is ludicrous of the city to ask for what the Code requires and incorrectly states that a through road is not feasible as the only stated reason for the infeasibility is cost of the through road "So, it is obvious that the through road is not feasible so to ask me to give a schedule and financing plan for it is ludicrous particularly when I have no ownership in any parcel connected to it.“ • Does the Staff report provide analysis and recommended findings on this for the Planning Commission and City Council - or just accept the applicants statement? Takeaways:
Slide 8 --11/18/2023
209
Slide 9 11/15/2023
San Juan Hills Area Plan – policy 10 was clearly intended to eliminate incremental road improvements
It is indisputable that the
legislative intent
adopting the SJHAP was
to not allow incremental
(ie step by step over
time) extension of the
unimproved road.
Questions of Policy need
to be evaluated with this
fact.
Slide 9 --11/18/2023
210
Slide 10 11/15/2023
San Juan Hills Area Plan – policy 10 was clearly intended to eliminate incremental road improvements
The SJHAP on page 26 lists the problems that are
created by incremental road extension
• This proposal checks each box in the list of
problems with incremental road extension
• In fact, the proposal specifically says that
future extension of Monte Cresta is possible
– ie the plan is predicated on impermissible
incremental road extension.
• How can a finding be made that this proposal
is consistent with the SJHAP directives?
Takeaways:
Slide 10 --11/18/2023
211
Slide 11 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e
Created and approved by the Belmont City Council in 1988 to codify the road improvement requirements for unimproved roads in the San Juan Hills area – especially policy 10 requirements
Slide 11 --11/18/2023
212
Slide 12 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9
Application requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment All requirements should have been submitted to the City to make a determination that the application was complete. When was the submission deemed complete? Was everything required submitted?
Has the proposal submitted by Kraft met all of these requirements? Is each item available to the public for review?
Takeaways:
Slide 12 --11/18/2023
213
Slide 13 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a-1
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment • The public has not seen this. The City claims that they are not allowed to provide a copy. They say a paper copy will be available at the PC meeting.
• The public has not had an adequate opportunity to see, analyze, and evaluate this! • The refusal to provide copies of documents is inconsistent with past City policy for other projects (e.g. see Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 2023 with Applicant Plans provided online) and is in conflict with the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The City recently lost a CPRA lawsuit because they were illegally interfering with citizens’ rights to access public information. Municipal policies (including Belmont’s) for public records access were also the subject of a recent San Mateo Grand Jury investigation. This City action conflicts with SB 1214. Why is CPRA access being interfered with on this project? This project has been inprocess for years, why is the approval process being rushed? This benefits the applicant, but what about the City and the citizens of Belmont?
Takeaways:
Slide 13 --11/18/2023
214
Slide 14 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a-2
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment • The public has not seen this and had the opportunity to review. The City claims that they are not allowed to provide a copy. They say a paper copy will be available at the PC meeting.
The public has not had an adequate opportunity to see, analyze, and evaluate this! • The proposal as we currently understand it does not meet the basic standards, but the Municipal Code allows for exceptions to be made with specific “findings” Exceptions must be made in – at least –
• the length of the cul-de-sac – 800 feet
• the diameter of the turnaround – 64 feet diameter in the Municipal code and 96 feet diameter in the adopted Fire Code
• On-street parking requirement
• Required compliance with the SHJAP
Exceptions and Variances – especially those the affect public safety – should be made with care, deliberation, open analysis, clear explanations to the public, etc. That is not the case here.
Takeaways:
Slide 14 --11/18/2023
215
Slide 15 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a-2
Exceptions
according to
the Municipal
Code for a
sub-standard
cul de sac:
The City’s “evaluation” is simply a listed set of facts (with errors). There is no evaluation or analysis. Can findings be made? This directly affects the necessity (and legal requirements) for simultaneous ingress and egress (i.e. evacuation) during a wildfire emergency. The CA AG guidance specifically addresses this. Why is this considered unimportant by the City? Exceptions to the basic standards are required to approve this plan! Takeaways:
Slide 15 --11/18/2023
216
Slide 16 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a-2
General
Exceptions
Provisions
according to
the
Municipal :
The City’s “evaluation” is simply a listed set of facts. There is no evaluation or analysis. Can the findings really be made in an acceptable manner?
Do the findings make sense and do they “bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision” as required by State law (CA Supreme Court Topanga decision)? Takeaways:
Slide 16 --11/18/2023
217
Slide 17 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a-2
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment Exceptions:
• Kraft has previously stated that "I am not asking for any exceptions to the Hillside Road Standards based on the Belmont Code Sections referenced below.“ • He has also said, “my fire truck turnaround "has been endorsed by the Deputy Fire Marshal so it is not an exception.“
• The Planning Commission and City Council must evaluate this proposal for what it is, and with the procedures and process mandated by the Municipal Code and the Fire Code. Exceptions and Variances are being asked for. Caution seems prudent.
Takeaways:
(continued)
Slide 17 --11/18/2023
218
Slide 18 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a-3
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment • The City has, as of Friday, put a number of Geotech documents online. More time should be provided for the public to adequately review. Neighbors should be given enough time to consult with experts for something that could severely impact their properties and where the City is sure to disclaim any and all liability. • This has been provided for only the short 50 foot segment; it ignores the rest of the unimproved road – which is impermissible and in conflict with Belmont’s laws.
Takeaways:
Slide 18 --11/18/2023
219
Slide 19 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a- 4 through 6
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment This is unclear. We have seen references to a “reimbursement agreement” but the terms and any details have not been disclosed. Which lots does this cover? Is this part of the current proposal to be decided upon by City Council? Why is there no Deferred Improvement Agreement on 2828 Monte Cresta as was the case on other past developments that abut unimproved roads – e.g. Marburger? Inconsistent and capricious application of City Code! This is unclear.
If this will be a public road, why is there no right-of-way dedication for the expanded turnaround. Who will maintain it in the future? Who will be responsible during construction? Where is the liability if something goes wrong? Decisions like this should be made to benefit all Belmont residents – not just a single developer. Also, why is this different than the project proposed for the other end of Monte Cresta where the City is demanding a private Homeowners’ Association to provide maintenance. Arguably, the City’s application of laws is arbitrary and capricious. This serves no one well.
Takeaways:
Takeaways:
Slide 19 --11/18/2023
220
Slide 20 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a- 7 through 8
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment • The proposal does not add any additional parking for the new residence. The substandard turnaround will need to be painted with a red curb and labeled a fire lane with no parking – or even stopping of vehicles – allowed.
• Is this a reasonable way to fulfil the “estimate” requirement? Maybe exists in the drawings not disclosed? Which properties are “abutting properties”? • Kraft project? –sure
• The next property down the road? – The precedent established in approving 2828 Monte Cresta gives the adjacent parcel legal access without the requirement for a Road Improvement Plan • 2828 Monte Cresta property? – it is abutting but presumably does not need access? Where is the Deferred Improvement Agreement?
Takeaways:
Slide 20 --11/18/2023
221
Slide 21 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a- 9 through 10
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment Have not seen. Was this part of Kraft’s submittal as required? The City determined that a CEQA categorical exemption (CE) applies and none of the exceptions for utilizing the CE exist. The process the City used to apply the CEQA categorical Exemption is problematic and flawed.
Takeaways:
Takeaways:
Slide 21 --11/18/2023
222
Slide 22 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a- 11
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment • There are statements that indicate that the Fire Department sees no problem. What about an analysis and comparison to the Fire Code? The procedures for exceptions in the adopted Fire Code are not being followed.
• This needs to be documented in writing. Is the Fire Chief prepared to sign off to such an analysis - with very significant relaxation of the fire code requirements in a High Fire Danger / Wildland Urban Interface where an actual fire occurred 2 years ago? Are the Planning Commissions willing to publicly sign off on this? Are City Council members? What kind of liability would this create? • This clearly is beneficial to a land developer. How is this justified to residents? Takeaways:
Slide 22 --11/18/2023
223
Slide 23 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-a- 11
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment Takeaways: The length of a cul de sac is regulated in other nearby cities, and in the fire code, because it is critical to wildfire safety and evacuation simultaneous with fire fighting in the event of a fire event. People die in wildfires!
• Has this been adequately
studied?
• Shouldn’t the City be more
cautious about exceptions
that would endanger
residents’ lives in a possible
wildfire event?
Slide 23 --11/18/2023
224
Slide 24 11/15/2023
• Does this exist? Note that this is a determination not just for this applicant at this time. This a community planning decision to determine that it is not reasonable to extend the road past the proposed end → period.
• What are the specific physical constraints? Where is the analysis of impacts and costs of overcoming?
• The applicant and his Geotech claims that it is unreasonable to expect this from one landowner --- but that is not what the City Code references! The applicant appears to have demonstrated financial reasonableness if all parcels are included in the analysis. Whis is this being ignored? • Key point – what is meant be “reasonable”? The applicant has been allowed to determine “reasonable”. This is clearly a City Council judgement call and tradeoffs need to be made by City decision makers. This process should be open and transparent to the public.
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-b-1
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment Takeaways:
Slide 24 --11/18/2023
225
Slide 25 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-b-1
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment • Kraft has stated, "a survey of all the existing cul-de-sac/turnarounds in the City of Belmont showed that the clear majority do not have sidewalks or parking, even beyond the San Juan Hills Area." and "The 80' required for sidewalks and parking, would be completely unfair because the clear majority of cul-de-sac in Belmont do not have sidewalks and parking..."
• Following this argument is it unfair of the city to require fire sprinkler systems in new houses even though 90% (estimated) of the houses in Belmont do not have sprinkler systems? Would the City waive this requirement? - of course not. So why waive, by allowing exceptions, other critical fire safety requirements especially in a Wildland Urban Interface area that has a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation from Cal Fire?
Takeaways:
(continued)
Slide 25 --11/18/2023
226
Slide 26 11/15/2023
• City Staff is stating that this provision is “unenforceable”. There is no explanation why. Can staff make a claim that any section of the duly legislatively passed City Code is “unenforceable” and therefore ignore it? How is this proper and legal? This claim was also made more than a decade ago on the Campbell project. If the City Attorney believed the City Code was illegal and unenforceable then, why was it not changed in that decade?
• A Belmont City Attorney wrote and approved this City Code provision in 1988. What State or Federal law changes, or court cases, have been implemented since 1988 such that the previous assessment is deemed to be wrong? Or is this just an opinion with no foundation? • This City Code provision is in fact important and essential – and probably not illegal or unenforceable. The SJHAP explains why – because of the property rights of the lot owners on the unimproved street. The City is inviting inverse condemnation (takings) lawsuits by ignoring this. City decision makers need to read the SJHAP.
• If the City determines that construction of a through road will not be done, does failing to show how access to all the properties abutting constitute a 'taking' of those property owners’ right of access to their properties? Is that a potential liability that is in the interest of the City to incur? Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-9-b-2
Item by item list of requirements to submit a Road Improvement Plan segment Takeaways:
Slide 26 --11/18/2023
227
Slide 27 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-10
Findings that must be made to approve a Road Improvement Plan segment - I Slide 27 --11/18/2023
228
Slide 28 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-10
Findings that must be made to approve a Road Improvement Plan segment - II Slide 28 --11/18/2023
229
Slide 29 11/15/2023
Belmont Municipal Code 7-13-e-10
Findings that must be made to approve a Road Improvement Plan segment • Can each of these findings be made in a manner consistent with the requirements of Topanga? The findings in the Staff Report and proposed Resolution are no more than a restatement of the ordinances and certain (sometimes disputable) facts – there are no explanations and analyses which effectively explain the City staff’s reasoning, analyses, and conclusions.
• The review and approval process needs to be open, rigorous, and transparent to the public.
• Adequate time, and access to public documents, has not been provided at this point.
• This is not a routine City action. The City should foster public input and dialog.
Any ultimate decision needs to be made openly and transparently – and must be consistent with State and local laws. That is fair to the developer and to the citizens of Belmont.
Takeaways:
Slide 29 --11/18/2023
230
Slide 30 11/15/2023
CEQA analysis of project
• There are ample grounds to determine that the project as presented requires greater CEQA review, under CEQA guidelines.
• the project does not meet the threshold for a CEQA 15332 Categorical Exemption: In-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations • This project should be disqualified from a Categorical Exemption based on: (1) Cumulative Impact; and (2) A reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. CEQA Statues and Guidelines 15300.2 • This project clearly does not comply with applicable general plan policies or applicable zoning designation and regulations. Clear special and unusual circumstances exist.
Takeaways:
City decision makers need to keep in mind CEQA’s
objectives:
Slide 30 --11/18/2023
231
Slide 31 11/15/2023
CEQA analysis of project
• The City Attorney previously communicated with the applicant in 2018 that the Categorical Exemption might not apply:
City decision makers need to keep in mind CEQA’s
objectives:
Takeaways:
(continued)
• What changed? Is the Categorical Exemption in the best interest of Belmont and its residents, or only best for the applicant?
• The project only (possibly) complies with the Categorical Exemption requirement by ignoring the requirement to resolve the entire unimproved road – thus failing the CE requirement based on probable cumulative environmental impacts. The area of the lots encompassing unimproved Monte Cresta is nearly 9 acres. Nine acres of changes to undeveloped land is certainly significant.
Slide 31 --11/18/2023
232
Slide 32 11/15/2023
Fire Code non-compliance I
• January 2023 Belmont City Council adopted the 2022
CA Fire Code (with appendix D) through the San Mateo
Consolidated Fire Department.
• This imposes mandatory requirements for Fire
Apparatus Access.
• This road improvement proposal does not meet the
mandatory requirements of the adopted code. • The size of the turnaround, although larger than the current one, would almost certainly require jockeying of the fire apparatus wasting critical time in an emergency.
Where is the analysis considering the turning radius of Belmont’s fire engines?
• There is a provision in the code for granting exceptions where the fire code official finds that strict application of the code is impractical and the modification is in
compliance with the intent and purpose of the code and
does not lessen health, life, and fire safety
requirements. Details of the granting of an exception
are to be recorded and entered into fire department
files. Why is this provision being ignored?
Slide 32 --11/18/2023
233
Slide 33 11/15/2023
Fire Code non-compliance II
• Is compliance with the adopted Fire Code mandatory for this project? The answer should be yes.
• Has real analysis been done by either the City of Belmont or the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department?
• The applicant claims the Fire Marshall has approved this project.
Is that all that Belmont requires - without any detailed analysis? • It appears that the decision is driven only by the fact that the proposed turnaround is a little bigger than the existing. Is that really enough to make this decision?
• Shouldn’t Belmont decision makers be more rigorous in protecting citizens from what everyone agrees is substantial risk of future devasting wildfires and isn’t code compliance part of that process?
• In July the CA Attorney General issued “Guidance to Local Governments to Mitigate Wildfire Risk from Proposed
Developments in Fire-Prone Areas”. Why is this being ignored? Takeaways:
Slide 33 --11/18/2023
234
Slide 34 11/15/2023
State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act I
• Evaluation of Landslide risk was added to the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act after the Loma Prieta Earthquake demonstrated the substantial risk of earthquake triggered landslides and the demonstrated inadequacy of existing building regulation throughout the State.
• The Act included a requirement that the CA Geological Survey map landslide risk and identify Zones of Required Investigation.
• The Act also required the development of mandatory procedures and guidelines for the analysis and reporting. • In 2018 the San Mateo Quadrangle Map, including Belmont, was officially released. • This project is within the Zone of Required Investigation under the State law. • The Geotech analysis and reports, as well as the City geologist peer review makes no mention of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act requirements.
• Based on the mandatory procedures and guidelines – a quantitative slope stability analysis would almost certainly be required. This results in computed “factors of safety” for landslide triggering risk under seismic and static conditions.
• Other projects in Belmont have included “quantitative slope stability analysis” as per the SHMA guidelines including Crystal Springs Uplands (where the downhill risk was Belmont’s Water Dog Lake Open Space), and more recently the Belmont Ave. apartments.
Slide 34 --11/18/2023
235
Slide 35 11/15/2023
• Has the Planning Department evaluated the project for compliance with the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act? • Why aren’t the requirements of the Act mandatory planning requirements for this project? • Isn’t it in the best interest of the City of Belmont, its residents, and the neighboring property owners to analyze landslide risk with the most up-to-date knowledge and procedures? • There are several houses, as well as City maintained Alhambra Dr., downhill from the project that could be severely affected by slope stability issues resulting from this project. • Homeowners insurance does not cover landslides – who would be liable if there is a landslide (seismically triggered or otherwise) that leads to damage of downhill properties including the City street? • The slope on the property is extremely steep; the toe of the slope was previously graded when Alhambra Dr was created (the grading appears to be from the 1970s? – the removal of material that steepened the slope is still visually apparent); this project increases the impermeable area of the property which effects the water table and storm runoff; this project adds mass to the uphill part of the slope, the project will result in landscape watering – all of these are known risk factors that increase the probability of landslide risk. Doesn’t this merit the most rigorous and up-to-date analysis?
• This project creates a complicated (tank storage, metering, electric pump, battery backup?) storm water system that would be subject to homeowner maintenance. None of the design specifications (rain intensity, duration, and period) for the system are publicly released. Failure of the system from lack of maintenance – or being overwhelmed by a substantial rain event (think January 2023 and the changing climate in general) - could lead to substantial uncontrolled water flows leading to damage and slope instability. What about downhill properties? State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act II
Takeaways:
Slide 35 --11/18/2023
236
Slide 36 11/15/2023
Parcel Legality under the Subdivision Map Act I
• The State Subdivision Map Act (SMA) regulates the subdivision of land in California and imposes mandatory requirements on municipalities like Belmont.
• A series of Court cases changed case law for determining the legality of lots created by subdivisions prior to the first Subdivision Map Act in 1929. This area was subdivided in 1927 and therefore is controlled by these Court decisions. • The Planning Department, over the objections of the applicant, required a determination of lot legality under the SMA for both the building lot and the floor area transfer sending lots. • The City issued Conditional Certificates of Compliance (CCOC) for all of the applicant’s parcels. These have been recorded as official records at the County. These impose mandatory conditions before the properties are approved for development. The parcels can be bought or sold based on the CCOC’s – which would otherwise be illegal – but cannot be developed without the satisfaction of the conditions. • The conditions imposed, as allowed by State law, require the properties to meet the zoning and City planning requirements that would have been imposed on a new lot creation (ie. Subdivision) at the time the property owner (applicant) acquired the properties.
• This is a new property development requirement that was not imagined at the time the San Juan Hills Area Plan, and the associated City Code sections, were adopted.
• At minimum, this should be handled as a “Policy Decision” and discussed openly and transparently, with the ability for Belmont citizen input. This will have a significant and substantial effect on a number of future Belmont developments – starting with this project.
Slide 36 --11/18/2023
237
Slide 37 11/15/2023
Parcel Legality under the Subdivision Map Act II
• The records indicate that the plan for legalizing the applicant’s parcels came out of meetings between the applicant, City Planning staff, and the City Attorney. No details of this meeting seem to be available. Backroom deals are incompatible with open government.
The plan as currently presented ignores the mandatory conditions imposed on the parcels by the CCOC’s and invents a “way out” for the applicant with highly questionable, and opaque, interpretations of Belmont’s documented Zoning Ordinance. • The applicant’s claim is that the floor area sending parcels do not need to be legal lots under the SMA because they will not be developed. But, satisfying the conditions of the CCOC’s is necessary to give the properties the right to be developed and the floor area transfer process is based on the transfer of development rights. Development potential cannot be transferred if it does not exist. It is illogical to ignore this.
• The applicant’s claim is that the building parcel does not need to be a legal lot under the SMA and does not need to meet the conditions imposed by the CCOC because the zoning code says that properties resulting from a floor area transfer do not need to meet the minimum lot size standards of the zoning ordinance. But the CCOC imposes conditions that would be required at the creation of a new parcel via a subdivision. The Floor Area transfer process does not, and was never meant to, create new parcels.
• The Zoning Ordinance defines a lot as “A portion of a recorded subdivision…” section 2.75. The determination of the CCOC is that the lots in questions were never legally recorded under the SMA. They are illegal lots, were never legally recorded under the SMA, and are not legally non-conforming and grandfathered. • The Zoning Ordinance for HRO properties clearly states, “Each lot created by subdivision, or any remainder parcel associated with a subdivision, shall individually meet the minimum lot size standard based upon the lot’s particular shape.” The CCOC imposes the conditions that would be required for the creation of a lot. This provision is being ignored in this project proposal.
Slide 37 --11/18/2023
238
Slide 38 11/15/2023
Parcel Legality under the Subdivision Map Act III
• The applicant certainly had the ability to research the laws and conduct proper due diligence before he purchased the lot and embarked on this proposal. Vacant hillside lots are sold at a price “too good to believe” for a reason. Any claim of “surprise” and “unfairness” should be viewed with skepticism.
• As specifically provided for in the CCOCs – the applicant should either follow the law or apply for exceptions and variances to the code’s provision. There is a well understood process to evaluate exceptions and variances and that should be followed by the City.
The proposal as presented is a grant of special privilege and would set a precedent for future developments. Caution is called for. • The applicant argues that it is unreasonable for him to comply with City and State laws. Is that all it takes? He has the right to petition the City Council to change City laws. Why is that not the process here? • The zoning code requirement for minimum lot size is there for a valid reason and was legislatively adopted – and subsequently confirmed in a public initiative vote (measure F). Special exceptions should be handled with care. • Any decision for this project would likely set a precedent for the other 10 unimproved roads in the San Juan area. This merits caution at best.
• Under State law, the applicant could have legally reversed his property purchase within one year of the time that he found out that the parcel was not compliant with the SMA – ie. the date that the City issued the CCOC’s. He evidently chose not to do this. • The applicant can increase the size of his building lot by purchasing adjacent vacant lots. This in fact would be consistent with the SJHAP stated goal – “Promote the voluntary reconsolidation of vacant subdivided land…” He has already chosen to purchase nonadjacent lots. The City has struggled with how to adapt the unplanned subdivision of the 1920s to the reality of building on steep, fire prone, hillsides. This was a major objective of the duly adopted San Juan Hills Area Plan. Why not require this? • Findings for granting the required CUP are inadequate. There is no analysis about the pattern of development if the CUP is not granted. In this case the applicant would be required to increase the size of his parcel. This would most certainly result in a better pattern of development for the entirety of unimproved Monte Cresta.
Slide 38 --11/18/2023
239
Slide 39 11/15/2023
Attachments – source and reference documents
Slide 39 --11/18/2023
240
Slide 40 11/15/2023
Attachments – source and reference documents
Slide 40 --11/18/2023
241
Slide 41 11/15/2023
Attachments – source and reference documents
Slide 41 --11/18/2023
242
Slide 42 11/15/2023
Attachments – source and reference documents
Slide 42 --11/18/2023
243
From: J Marshall
To: x-City Clerk"s Office; City Council; Planning Comm; x-community development; Brian Kulich; Mark Gurevich; David Kramer; Nathan Majeski; Peter Meier; Julia Mates - Mayor; Davina Hurt - Vice Mayor; Thomas McCune; Gina Latimerlo; [email protected]
Subject: Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday 21 November 2023 - Public Records and transparency Date: Sunday, November 19, 2023 2:59:07 PM
Dear Belmont Planning Commissioners, City Council Members, and CIty Clerk, A major development project including a Road Improvement Plan and Single Family Design Review, with a number of claimed variances and exemptions to City code, is scheduled for the 21 November 2023 Planning Commission meeting.
I respectfully ask that the hearing be postponed and the public be allowed free access, including digital copies, to important and relevant public documents to be able fully analyze and comment on the major development proposal that could have a significant impact for many neighboring residents and establish precedent for a number of future projects currently in the works.
City staff has not provided important public records with the claim that:
"...project drawings that contain copyrighted information that are submitted to the planning agency are only available for public review at City Hall. Additionally, absent the engineer of records permission, local planning agencies are generally prohibited from posting copies of civil engineer and design drawings on the internet. Those who wish to review the civil engineer and design plans prior to the public hearing can review them at City Hall. A physical copy of the civil and design drawings being considered by the Planning Commission will also be available during the public hearing for review." This is counter to all past City procedures where full project drawings, including civil engineering plans, design drawings, architects plans, etc. are made available well before a hearing and are freely available to the public, including online copies that can be downloaded and studied. See numerous examples of plans available online now on the City's website for past PC meetings as well as posted on the City website under Major Projects. The online agenda for the Tuesday PC meeting also contains a second public hearing where online plans are freely available with no copy restrictions and no copyright claim.
What is different about this project? Why the change for just this one project? It certainly gives the appearance of an opaque public process and that perhaps something is being hidden.
The issue of the CPRA, Public Records, and copyright has been addressed by the First Amendment Coalition which raises some serious questions about the legality of the CIty's actions: https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2018/05/aa-when-does-copyrightapply-to-public-records/ The City recently lost a CPRA lawsuit because of its interference with the right of the public to access, and obtain copies of, public documents. What was the take away lesson for CIty leaders?
244
The County Grand Jury recently addressed County Cities', including Belmont's, procedures under the CPRA and their openness to providing required access. Belmont did not look good in the report and whereas a promise was made to put in place training and better procedures it appears that there has been no change. I request CIty leaders step up to support better access to public
records? https://sanmateo.courts.ca.gov/system/files/public-rights-act.pdf The action is in conflict with recently passed
SB1214: https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB1214/2021
A recent legal paper on the relationship between open government statutes, including the California Public Records Act, and copyright law noted:
"Because the bar for a document to qualify as copyright protected is low, a secretive government agency could manipulatively use copyright protection to conceal studies, reports, and other documents of undeniable public interest if copyright is understood to operate as a trump card overriding the public’s right of access."
"...it would be perilous to equip those agencies with a “get out of accountability free card” by recognizing copyright as a categorical override of the duty to disclose."
"Copyright Versus the Right to Copy: The Civic Danger of Allowing Intellectual Property Law to Override State Freedom of Information Law"; Frank D.
LoMonte; Loyola University Chicago Law Journal;
ISSN: 0024-7081; https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=2778&context=luclj
I sincerely hope that this is not what is happening in Belmont.
Again, it is requested that the Public Hearing for agenda item 6A be continued until a date uncertain when the Public has the ability to make a thorough review and make cogent written and oral comments based upon a staff report with all the necessary attachments which, absent the currently missing (from Public view) Hillside Road Improvement Plan and the SingleFamily Design, the Public cannot do.
I would also like City representatives to explain, why is the City of Belmont doing this? Do you not believe in and support open government and fair hearings? Please note that I do not believe responding to me raises any issues related to ex parte communication on a quasi-judicial development project review before City decision makers. I have raised no project specific issues herein, only the topic of City openness and transparency and I am asking for a hearing continuance. In fact, I would sincerely like to work with City representatives to improve the openness and transparency of the City - in full alignment with State constitutional and statutory requirements and limits. I am available to discuss this with any of you if you so desire.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Jeff Marshall
245
246
247
From: Mark Herbach
To: Brian Kulich; Planning Comm; Mark Gurevich; David Kramer; Nathan Majeski; Peter Meier; x-community development; x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Planning Commission Nov 21, 2023 Agenda Item 6A Public Hearing for 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive Date: Sunday, November 19, 2023 11:08:59 AM
Planning Commission Nov 21, 2023 Agenda Item 6A Public Hearing for 2800 block of Monte Cresta Drive - Development Review (Complex Project) “To consider a Hillside Road Improvement Plan, Single-Family Design Review, …”
Neither the Hillside Road Improvement Plan nor the Single-Family Design is attached to the Agenda released to the Public at 3:13PM on Friday.
We have been told that “A physical copy of the civil and design drawings being considered by the Planning Commission will also be available during the public hearing for review.” The Planning Commission however has received a copy of the Project Plans - See Staff Report Attachment 19.
Project Plans – (Commission Only)
The Public cannot be expected to make cogent written comments on the project without reviewing the main documents i.e. Hillside Road Improvement Plan and Single-Family Design which were not provided with the agenda released at 3:13 on Friday (when the following week much of the public is not available since it is Thanksgiving week).
The Public must choose between reviewing documents at the Public Hearing, or paying attention to the Planning Commission, staff and applicant presentations as their only opportunity to see the documents is during the Public Hearing.
We have also been told that “…absent the engineer of records permission, local planning agencies are generally prohibited from posting copies of civil engineer and design drawings on the internet.”
Has the City requested the engineer of records permission for attaching the civil engineer and design drawings to the agenda and posting the same on the internet? Has that permission been denied?
As the City Notice of Public Hearing states that attendance may be via Zoom, how can the Public that connects via Zoom review documents that are physically present at the city council chambers but not available on the internet during the Public Hearing? Why is the Monte Cresta project receiving disparate treatment? I don’t recall during my years as a Planning Commissioner and Planning Commission Chairman ever seeing a project agenda without all the relevant documents attached for Public review. That has always been City policy and has continued to be so during the five most recent projects involving Design Reviews: See agendas for meetings on 12/12/2022, 2/21/2023, 3/7/2023, 4/4/2023, and 5/2/2023. Additionally you need look no further than the other item (6B) on Tuesday’s agenda to see a project that does include all the relevant attachments for an appropriate Public Hearing. The subject project (6A), which is subject to CEQA which has a goal to inform government decision makers and the public, appears to have been singled out as one where vital information is being withheld from the Public thereby precluding informed discretionary action by the City. 248
For all the above reasons, it is requested that the Public Hearing for agenda item 6A be continued until a date uncertain when the Public has the ability to make a thorough review and cogent written comments based upon a staff report with all the necessary attachments which, absent the currently missing (from Public view) Hillside Road Improvement Plan and the Single-Family Design, the Public cannot do.
249
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: Public Hearing of the Kraft Project 11/21/23 Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 3:24:41 PM
Attachments: Monte Cresta Data File.xlsx
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
From: Coralin Feierbach
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 3:18 PM
To: Planning Comm <[email protected]>; Brian Kulich <[email protected]>; Mark Gurevich <[email protected]>; David Kramer <[email protected]>; Nathan Majeski <[email protected]>; Peter Meier <[email protected]> Cc: Coralin Email
Subject: Public Hearing of the Kraft Project 11/21/23
Dear Belmont Planning Commissioners,
First, I would like to thank you for your services to our city and for reading my email below.
As a both former Belmont Planning Commissioner and City Council member, I would ask the staff the following questions:
1. The staff report appears to make exceptions to the San Juan Hills Area Plan adopted in March 1988.
One exception directly opposes the expressed purpose of the San Juan Canyon Plan, namely the prevention of incremental lot development.
This is the heart of the San Juan Canyon Plan.
This would be a formidable precedent if this application were approved for any future incremental development on the unimproved sections of Alhambra, Mote Cresta, Upper Lock, Lower Lock Marburger, and San Ardo Way to name a few.
Question: Does opening the door for further incremental development in our sensitive San Juan Canyon areas pose increased ecological, fire, landslide, and evacuation issues which are already 250
problematic in this area?
2. How can the staff make exceptions to the San Juan Hills area Plan which is our current Law? Wouldn't you have to first change the San Juan Plan and hold public hearings thereof and not just selectively delete parts of the San Juan Plan in your decision?
3. I have attached a list of property owners as of September 2022. I spent time at the County to get that information. To ignore the proptery owners beyond the applicant’s property is, in my opinion, a violation of the San Juan Plan (page 53). Has the developer contacted the property owners as specified by The Plan?
“A plan for the access for properties located along the rest of the roadway which will not be served by the proposed roadway sections and evidence of participation and support for the proposed plan by affected landowners”
Kindest regards,
Coralin Feierbach
3206 East Laurel Creek Road
Belmont, CA 94002
251
PARCEL NUMBER PRICE PAID OWNER(S)
043-165-180 $107,087 Schmiede, Angela and Kraft, Lee
043-165-170 $149,432 Song, Yao Mui
043-165-160 $54,360 Tsien, Dar Sun & Martha S Trs
043-165-150 $18,980 Chang, Corolin & Nim
043-165-140 $24,321 Tan, Eugene & Laura Tr
043-165-130 $52,558 Prigogin, Nina Tr & Prigogin, Sergey Tr 043-165-120 $22,521 Boddakayala, Bhaskara & Venkata
043-165-110 $5,750 Medical Management Control
043-165-100 $27,876 Huang, Meng and Siyun Wang
043-165-090 $75,000 Angela Schmiede and Lee Kraft
043-242-240 $167,042 Van Vliet Andres & Soriano, Raquel 043-242-050 $40,469 Hertel, Philipp and Mayoga
043-242-040 City Of Belmont, CA
043-242-250 $77,292 Song, Yao Hui
043-242-210 $49,080 Angela Schmiede and Lee Kraft
043-242-020 $58,017 Rizzo Mathew TR and Rizzo Trust
043-242-010 $8,677 Bigeh, Gita
043-232-300 $9,249 Baiony, Mohammed
043-232-290 $9,670 Fallaha, Maya
043-232-280 $14,499 8by8 Llc
043-232-140 $36,333 Huang, Meng and Wang, Siyun
043-232-130 $8,677 Bighe, Keyamin
043-232-090 $95,425 Huang, Meng and Siyun Wang
043-232-080 $252,496 Tan Eugene & Laura Tr
043-232-230 $69,430 Tan Eugene & Laura Tr
043-232-270 $58,017 Rizzo Matthew Noel Tr
252
043-243-340 Lot $260,688/$1,596,302 Damon Campbell
043-243-120 $115,857 Duong Fal Van Et A and Do Tuy Hoa Thi 043-243-360 $141,984 Duvall, Mary G Tr
043-243-160 $24,008 Duvall, Mary G Tr
043-243-170 $12,128 Morin Louise Tr and St Hilaire Pierre Tr 043-243-180 $42,887 Chaughan, Jay S
043-243-350 $15,746 Madruga, Janice Tr
043-234-140 $339,963 Mano, Hsinhui and Chen, Shin Heng
043-234-210 $91,137 Huang, Meng and Siyun Wang
043-234-170 $114,722 Huang, Meng
Rows that are shaded blue denote properties that
can't be developed because their floor area has
been transferred to other areas outside of Monte
Cresta
253
Rows that are shaded gold denote properties that
are owned by Meng Huang et all, the potential
developer. However, Huang lists 5 parcels that he
wants to do a road extension: 043-234-170, 043-234-
210, 043-232-090, 043-232-130, 043-232-270. But the
County lists properties 043-343-130 and 043-232-270
belonging to other owners.
254
ADDRESS
105 Scenic Dr. Redwood City CA 94062
1363 17th Ave, San Francisco, CA 94122
585 Almond Ave, Los Altos, CA 94022-2311
465 Wilde Ave, San Francisco CA 94134-2253
2940 Alhambra Drive. Belmont, CA 94002
2848 Alhambra Dr, Belmont, CA 94002
915 Portsmouth Dr Troy, MI 48084-1674
C/O Pmc-Consultants To Health Profs Inc 1201 California St #501, San Francisco CA 94109
226 Coleman Street San Francisco CA 94124
105 Scenic Dr. Redwood City CA 94062 or 7 Michelle Ln Petaluma, CA 94952 229 Hillview Ave. Redwood City CA 94062-2121
3858 W Naughton Ave. Belmont CA 94002
One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont CA 94002-0000
1363 17th Ave, San Francisco, CA 94122
105 Scenic Dr. Redwood City CA 94062
1323 Sw Greens Pointe Way, Palm City FL 34990
C/O Karah G Michaels, 2175 Cedar Ave Apt 5k, New York, NY 10468-5524 (Old Address) 2007 Fairmont Drive, San Mateo CA 94402-3925 (Old Address) 2007 Fairmont Drive, San Mateo CA 94402-3925 C/O Attn Adeline Kuo, Po Box 3176, Saratoga CA 95070
226 Coleman Street San Francisco CA 94124
P O Bos 1416, Watsonville, OR 97070-1416
236 Coleman Street San Francisco CA 94124
2940 Alhambra Drive. Belmont, CA 94002
2940 Alhambra Drive, Belmont, CA 94002
1323 Sw Greens Pointe Way, Palm City FL 34990
255
2828 Monte Cresta Dr. Belmont, CA 94002
2120 Lyon Ave. Belmont, CA 94002
2721 All View Wy, Belmont CA 94002
C/O Criss, Thomas 2721 All View Wy, Belmont CA 94002
2712 All View Way, Belmlnt CA 94002
PO Box 3556, Redwood City, CA 94064
2706 All View Way, Belmont Ca 94002
5752 Tanoak, Fremont CA 94555-1804
226 Coleman Street, San Francisco, CA 94124
226 Coleman Street, San Francisco, CA 94124
256
257
PARCEL NUMBER PRICE PAID OWNER(S)
043-165-180 $107,087 Schmiede, Angela and Kraft, Lee
043-165-170 $149,432 Song, Yao Mui
043-165-160 $54,360 Tsien, Dar Sun & Martha S Trs
043-165-150 $18,980 Chang, Corolin & Nim
043-165-140 $24,321 Tan, Eugene & Laura Tr
043-165-130 $52,558 Prigogin, Nina Tr & Prigogin, Sergey Tr 043-165-120 $22,521 Boddakayala, Bhaskara & Venkata
043-165-110 $5,750 Medical Management Control
043-165-100 $27,876 Huang, Meng and Siyun Wang
043-165-090 $75,000 Angela Schmiede and Lee Kraft
043-242-240 $167,042 Van Vliet Andres & Soriano, Raquel 043-242-050 $40,469 Hertel, Philipp and Mayoga
043-242-040 City Of Belmont, CA
043-242-250 $77,292 Song, Yao Hui
043-242-210 $49,080 Angela Schmiede and Lee Kraft
043-242-020 $58,017 Rizzo Mathew TR and Rizzo Trust
043-242-010 $8,677 Bigeh, Gita
043-232-300 $9,249 Baiony, Mohammed
043-232-290 $9,670 Fallaha, Maya
043-232-280 $14,499 8by8 Llc
043-232-140 $36,333 Huang, Meng and Wang, Siyun
043-232-130 $8,677 Bighe, Keyamin
043-232-090 $95,425 Huang, Meng and Siyun Wang
043-232-080 $252,496 Tan Eugene & Laura Tr
043-232-230 $69,430 Tan Eugene & Laura Tr
043-232-270 $58,017 Rizzo Matthew Noel Tr
258
043-243-340 Lot $260,688/$1,596,302 Damon Campbell
043-243-120 $115,857 Duong Fal Van Et A and Do Tuy Hoa Thi 043-243-360 $141,984 Duvall, Mary G Tr
043-243-160 $24,008 Duvall, Mary G Tr
043-243-170 $12,128 Morin Louise Tr and St Hilaire Pierre Tr 043-243-180 $42,887 Chaughan, Jay S
043-243-350 $15,746 Madruga, Janice Tr
043-234-140 $339,963 Mano, Hsinhui and Chen, Shin Heng
043-234-210 $91,137 Huang, Meng and Siyun Wang
043-234-170 $114,722 Huang, Meng
Rows that are shaded blue denote properties that
can't be developed because their floor area has
been transferred to other areas outside of Monte
Cresta
259
Rows that are shaded gold denote properties that
are owned by Meng Huang et all, the potential
developer. However, Huang lists 5 parcels that he
wants to do a road extension: 043-234-170, 043-234-
210, 043-232-090, 043-232-130, 043-232-270. But the
County lists properties 043-343-130 and 043-232-270
belonging to other owners.
260
ADDRESS
105 Scenic Dr. Redwood City CA 94062
1363 17th Ave, San Francisco, CA 94122
585 Almond Ave, Los Altos, CA 94022-2311
465 Wilde Ave, San Francisco CA 94134-2253
2940 Alhambra Drive. Belmont, CA 94002
2848 Alhambra Dr, Belmont, CA 94002
915 Portsmouth Dr Troy, MI 48084-1674
C/O Pmc-Consultants To Health Profs Inc 1201 California St #501, San Francisco CA 94109
226 Coleman Street San Francisco CA 94124
105 Scenic Dr. Redwood City CA 94062 or 7 Michelle Ln Petaluma, CA 94952 229 Hillview Ave. Redwood City CA 94062-2121
3858 W Naughton Ave. Belmont CA 94002
One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont CA 94002-0000
1363 17th Ave, San Francisco, CA 94122
105 Scenic Dr. Redwood City CA 94062
1323 Sw Greens Pointe Way, Palm City FL 34990
C/O Karah G Michaels, 2175 Cedar Ave Apt 5k, New York, NY 10468-5524 (Old Address) 2007 Fairmont Drive, San Mateo CA 94402-3925 (Old Address) 2007 Fairmont Drive, San Mateo CA 94402-3925 C/O Attn Adeline Kuo, Po Box 3176, Saratoga CA 95070
226 Coleman Street San Francisco CA 94124
P O Bos 1416, Watsonville, OR 97070-1416
236 Coleman Street San Francisco CA 94124
2940 Alhambra Drive. Belmont, CA 94002
2940 Alhambra Drive, Belmont, CA 94002
1323 Sw Greens Pointe Way, Palm City FL 34990
261
2828 Monte Cresta Dr. Belmont, CA 94002
2120 Lyon Ave. Belmont, CA 94002
2721 All View Wy, Belmont CA 94002
C/O Criss, Thomas 2721 All View Wy, Belmont CA 94002
2712 All View Way, Belmlnt CA 94002
PO Box 3556, Redwood City, CA 94064
2706 All View Way, Belmont Ca 94002
5752 Tanoak, Fremont CA 94555-1804
226 Coleman Street, San Francisco, CA 94124
226 Coleman Street, San Francisco, CA 94124
262
263
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Meeting November 21, 2023, Agenda Item 6A, Public Hearing for 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive
Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:06:28 PM
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Gail
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 12:40 PM
To: Planning Comm <[email protected]>; Brian Kulich <[email protected]>; [email protected]; David Kramer <[email protected]>; Nathan Majeski <[email protected]>; Peter Meier <[email protected]>; x-community development <[email protected]>; x-City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting November 21, 2023, Agenda Item 6A, Public Hearing for 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive
RE: Planning Commission Meeting November 21, 2023, Agenda Item 6A, Public Hearing for the 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive - Developmental Review (Complex Project)”To consider a Hillside Road Improvement Plan, Single-Family Design Review,….”
I am in total agreement with my neighbors who have expressed to you more succinctly and clearly than I could, concerns regarding Wildfire Planning and compliance with Fire and Municipal Codes, Compliance with the San Juan Hills Area Plan and Municipal Code, as a Complex Project not in compliance with a number of State and City Laws,
I would like to focus my concerns on the area of Geotechnical Studies, Landslide potential and Water Run-off as they impact me living directly below the proposed construction.
1. The building site is extremely steep in the rear portion where foundation piers and those for the holding tank would be built. I would hope the Planning Commission considers proper depth for these piers to not only support but to withstand earthquakes that are not uncommon to this area. The soil was tested (boring samples) not in the area of pier construction, but in the front of the proposed construction. Would findings be the same? There is no proof of this.
2. Although the holding tank will be on private property, that should not preclude it from being inspected regularly. I would like to request that one of the conditions for project approval include twice yearly testing and reporting the results to the City of the stormwater system. This should include testing of each pump and load testing of the backup generator as well.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Gail Mintz
2810 Alhambra Drive
Belmont, CA
264
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: PC mtg Nov 21, 2023, Agenda item 6A, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:51:46 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
From: Geri Crane
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 6:20 AM
To: Brian Kulich <[email protected]>; Planning Comm <[email protected]>; Mark Gurevich <[email protected]>; David Kramer <[email protected]>; Nathan Majeski <[email protected]>; Peter Meier <[email protected]>; x-community development <[email protected]>; x-City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>; jeff c marshall; Wach, Ken mark herbach
Subject: PC mtg Nov 21, 2023, Agenda item 6A, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Dear Belmont Planning Commissioners,
My husband and I have been residents of Belmont since 1994. We live on Sequoia Way. We have significant concerns about the project proposal for the 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive scheduled for review on Tuesday, November 21, 2023. We ask that you take the comments and concerns that were presented to you by Mark Herbach (11/20/23) and Jeff Marshall (11/19/23) into consideration as you deliberate on this proposed project. They have articulated their concerns and my husband and I fully support them.
We are particularly concerned that the current proposal does not comply with the Fire Code; requires questionable exceptions from the Municipal Code; and ignores the CA AG guidance to cities to address the problems we all see with devastating wildfires in CA. Our property at 2711 Sequoia Way was damaged by the San Juan Canyon fire in September 2020 and we were very fortunate that the Belmont Fire Department was able to fight the fire, but it brought up great concerns about the accessibility of the streets in our neighborhood and our ability to evacuate. This type of development will only exacerbate those concerns.
Thank you in advance for your service to Belmont and for your attention to this matter. 265
Sincerely,
Geri Crane & Ken Wach
266
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Cc: Mara Perez
Subject: FW: Kraft proposal to extend Monte Cresta - analysis and concerns Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 5:59:55 PM
Attachments: Kraft proposal to extend Monte Cresta - analysis and concerns - November 19, 2023.pdf.download.zip image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Additional comment received. Thanks
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
From: Kirstin Hornby <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 5:43 PM
To: x-community development <[email protected]>; Planning Comm <[email protected]>; Brian Kulich <[email protected]>; Mark Gurevich <[email protected]>; David Kramer <[email protected]>; Nathan Majeski <[email protected]>; Peter Meier <[email protected]> Subject: Kraft proposal to extend Monte Cresta - analysis and concerns Hello,
I am submitting this as a public written comment on the Public Hearing for the 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 2023. Please enter this into the written record - and I respectively ask that you take these comments and concerns into consideration as you deliberate on this proposed project.
I've lived on Sequoia Way for over 8 years, where I'm a single mom, raising my two young boys. My house is directly behind the trail and one of the housing proposals. We absolutely love exploring nature on the trail. It's a key part of our daily life, walking with our dog.
I sincerely believe that the project proposal as being presented to the Planning Commission for review before a recommendation is made to the City Council has numerous areas where it conflicts with City and State laws. Some of these are discussed in the staff report and other documents (and some of the most relevant documents as copies are not being released to the public), some are ignored and/or omitted entirely. The conclusions that are made by staff to recommend approval of this project are in many cases not supported by the facts and evidence presented. 267
This is detailed and complicated. This is the first time in more than a decade that a San Juan Hills Area Plan (SJHAP) road improvement plan has even appeared before the City; the last adjudicated and approved road improvement plan approval goes back to 1995 with Ralston Ranch - more than 28 years ago. I think this predates the institutional memory of all current Belmont staff and representatives. So this is completely new to everyone involved. Because of this, special care needs to be taken in the review and evaluation process. This is not what I am seeing. I feel confident that you as fellow Belmont citizens believe it is important to fully and transparently disclose to the public the reasons for the approval (and its legality) of such a complicated and significant development project.
I have attached a detailed presentation identifying numerous errors and problems with the proposal as presented. In a separate email I also have expressed specific and serious concerns about the openness and transparency of this process and my questioning of its compliance with open government statutes. Beyond that, I really hope that you care about openness and communication with all Belmont residents. I know there are legal issues with ex parte communications on a quasijudicial review - but let's find a way to communicate.
As an introduction to the presentation attached prepared by my neighbors in the "Save our Belmont Canyon and Monte Cresta/Alhambra” working group please let me highlight the following top level concerns:
·Wildfire planning - the current proposal does not comply with the Fire Code; requires questionable exceptions from the Municipal Code; ignores the CA AG guidance to cities to address the problems we all see with devastating wildfires in CA. ·Geotech / Landslide / Stormwater - the current proposal ignores the State requirement in the Seismic Hazard Act and does not fully analyze landslide risks that could lead to devastation to the neighbors.
· Complex Project - there is clear evidence that the proposal is not compliant with a number of State and City laws; requires numerous exceptions and variances; and the City is not fully disclosing information to the public that will be affected and that is necessary to evaluate and comment on the plan in a public setting as required by law. Why is this being rushed?
· Compliance with the San Juan Hills Area Plan and the Municipal Code - Compliance is a legal requirement under State law. Shouldn't residents be given the opportunity to present evidence to be judged by City decision makers?
· The legality of the Parcels under the Subdivision Map Act and Floor Area transfer - This is at minimum a policy question. This needs to be discussed openly and transparently and the City should not blindly do the developers bidding. Residents have a clear interest in the outcome and have legal rights.
·Openness and Transparency - Why has the City created suddenly, without explanation, and contrary to past practices a new rule that prohibits copying of the relevant documents in this proposal. What is being hidden? Is this in the interest of anyone other than the developer?
· City staff determined that parts of the Municipal Code are unenforceable - What is the legal authority for this? Why is this not arbitrary and capricious? Can this be done arbitrarily by City staff for anything? Laws are changed with a legislative process, not the 268
dictate of City staff.
I see a real problem in the City asking Planning Commissioners to digest all of this in one meeting.
Fundamentally, my neighbors and I are in the position of disputing what staff is telling you. I do not have the expectation that my neighbors and I should be believed without question. I do have the hope that what my neighbors and I present includes facts that give you pause and leads to an open and honest forum to review and analyse this development proposal, its compliance with City and State statutes, and what it would mean for the City of Belmont's future.
Thank you in advance for your service to Belmont and attention on this matter.
Kirstin Hornby
2715 Sequoia Way.
269
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: Unable to deliver my email to your group account - Public Hearing, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:05:41 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
From: Linnaea Knisely
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 12:12 PM
To: Planning Comm <[email protected]>; Brian Kulich <[email protected]>; Mark Gurevich <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Nathan Majeski <[email protected]>; Peter Meier <[email protected]>; x-community development <[email protected]>; x-City Clerk's Office <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Unable to deliver my email to your group account - Public Hearing, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta
My email to this group hit a wall:
Subject: Public Hearing, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta
Sent: 11/21/2023 12:02 PM
The following recipient(s) cannot be reached:
'[email protected] ' on 11/21/2023 12:00 PM
None of your email accounts could send to this recipient.
From: Linnaea Knisely
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 12:00 PM
To: '[email protected] '
Subject: Public Hearing, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta
This note is being sent – last minute – to confirm that I do wholly support the comments made by Mark and Etta Herbach. I’d have come in person – but I’m out of town for Thanksgiving, and I’m 270
hoping that the combination of the request to see/read the documents which are not part of the file, and the poor timing would allow this meeting to be deferred until the first Tuesday of December.
Further, although Public Works has cited approval – after 5 iterations – of storm drainage plans, I’m concerned that many of the initial project assessments were made in 2017 and that the hillside and climate factors have intensified the need for a reconsideration of key elements. I’m concerned as well about the numerous exceptions made for this project. I’d write more but between a Board meeting and an upcoming Accreditation review on 11/30, I’m SLAMMED.
Best,
Linnaea Knisely
2703 Sequoia Way,
Belmont CA 94002
_____________________________________________
From: System Administrator
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 12:02 PM
Subject: Undeliverable: Public Hearing, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta e did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. ct: Public Hearing, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta
11/21/2023 12:02 PM
The following recipient(s) cannot be reached:
'[email protected] ' on 11/21/2023 12:02 PM
None of your email accounts could send to this recipient. 271
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: Monte Cresta Development Proposal (Kraft/Schmiede site) - Nov 21st Calendar Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:06:04 PM
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Reinhardt
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 12:39 PM
To: Planning Comm <[email protected]>
Subject: Monte Cresta Development Proposal (Kraft/Schmiede site) - Nov 21st Calendar Good Day Planning Commission,
I am writing you today first and foremost as a property owner who’s received a notice in the mail regarding the meeting tonight for the proposal for the proposed home slated for review by the commission.
I have reviewed the materials and also have an extensive depth of knowledge of the site in addition to the challenges both the site, the zoning and the city process put up. I will also qualify myself that I was the real estate agent who has sold this property, not once but twice in fact. I think that it would be worth noting that I have offered the property to the neighboring owners and none elected to make a purchase.
The project will deliver a desperately needed turnaround for vehicles. Not only for the day to day goings about, but also in the event of a fire or other need for emergency vehicles to have better access to the area at large.
Furthermore, this project will preserve a nice chunk of open space as part of it complying with the zoning standards of the HRO-2.
It’s a well designed house that will be one small but very meaningful and necessary drop in the housing bucket for a family to call home. The entirety of new housing can not expectedly be jammed into the “downtown village”….this is a privately owned lot designed to allow for single family homes…such as this proposal.
Regards,
Max Reinhardt
Sent from my iPhone
272
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: PC mtg Nov 21, 2023, Agenda item 6A, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:05:26 PM
Attachments: HERBACH Written Comments 21Nov2023 Agenda item 6A.pdf image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
From: Philippe Levy
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Planning Comm <[email protected]>; Mark Gurevich <[email protected]>; David Kramer <[email protected]>; Nathan Majeski <[email protected]>; Peter Meier <[email protected]>; x-community development <[email protected]>; x-City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: PC mtg Nov 21, 2023, Agenda item 6A, 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Good morning dear Belmont Planning Commissioners.
I am resident of Belmont since 1988 and I am submitting this as a public written comment on the public hearing for the 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Drive scheduled for today November 21st, 2023.
Please enter this into the written record - and we respectively ask that you take our comments and concerns into consideration as you deliberate on this proposed project.
I agree with Mark Herbach that the project proposal as being presented to the Planning Commission for review prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation to the City Council has numerous areas where it conflicts with City and State laws.
I am copying/attaching the Herbach’s comments to this note because I strongly believe that the city staff needs to address all items before the commission can even entertain making a decision.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and thank you for your service to the Belmont community!
273
Warm regards,
Philippe Levy
274
From: Carlos de Melo
To: Rob Gill
Subject: FW: Opposition to Development of 2800 Block of Monte Cresta Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:52:23 AM
Attachments: HERBACH Written Comments 21Nov2023 Agenda item 6A.pdf Carlos de Melo
Community Development Director
1 Twin Pines Ln, Suite 310 Belmont, CA 94002
P: (650) 595-7440 | E: [email protected]
www.belmont.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy L. Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 9:27 AM
To: Brian Kulich <[email protected]>; Planning Comm <[email protected]>; Mark Gurevich <[email protected]>; David Kramer <[email protected]>; Nathan Majeski <[email protected]>; Peter Meier <[email protected]>; x-community development <[email protected]>; x-City Clerk's Office <[email protected]> Cc: Jyothi Robertson; Mark Herbach
Subject: Opposition to Development of 2800 Block of Monte Cresta We as residents of 2719 Sequoia Way in Belmont concur with the arguments put forth by Mark & Etta Herbach, that there are numerous issues with the proposed development on the 2800 block of Monte Cresta and it should not be allowed to go forward at this time. This development impacts the Monte Cresta trail, one of the local neighborhood’s greatest natural areas, and falls under the San Juan Canyon Plan, which states development should meet “most restrictive” standards. We've attached a copy of the Herbach’s well-reasoned concerns to this email so it can be properly entered into the public record on our behalf.
Sincerely,
-Timothy L. Robertson, Ph.D.
-Jyothi V. Robertson, DVM, DABVP (Shelter Medicine)
2719 Sequoia Way
Belmont, CA 94002
275
,,
( (
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-005
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT APPLICATION NO. 2015-0057 IS INCOMPLETE WHEREAS, in November 2015, Jeff Kraft, applicant and property owner, filed Application No. 2015-0057 for entitlements required to construct a single-family home and accessory dwelling unit located on a vacant lot on Monte Cresta Drive (APN 043-165-180); and, WHEREAS, after receiving a letter dated December 2, 2016 that the application was incomplete, Mr. Kraft filed an appeal of the Planning Department's decision that his application was incomplete; and,
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission public hearing on the appeal was duly noticed, held, and closed on January 3, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2017 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 2017-02 upholding the decision of the Planning Department that Application No. 2015-0057 is incomplete; and,
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2017, Mr. Kraft filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision that Application No. 2015-0057 is incomplete; and, WHEREAS, a City Council public hearing on the appeal was duly noticed, held, and closed on January 24, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby relies upon the staff report dated January 24, 2017 and the facts contained therein, as they pertain to the project, as it� own findings of facts, along with any additional findings of fact made by the City Council at the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Belmont finds that the appeal of the completeness determination is exempt from CEQA because it is not the approval of a project as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a)(3), in .that it does not involve the i�suance of any entitlement for use; and,
WHEREAS, ·the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth and as included in the record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Belmont hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission that Application No. 2015-0057 is incomplete, and that the information listed in attached Exhibit A must be submitted to the Planning Department to complete the application.
* *·*
276
ADOPTED January 24, 2017, by the City Counci l ofthe•City ofBelmontbythe following vote:
Ayes: Hurt, Kim, Reed, Li eberman, Stone
ATTEST:
c�- {»� -
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Scott Rennie
City Attorney
277
EXHIBIT A
ITEMS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION
1. Evidence of Infeasibility of Complete Road Extension. The application submitted on November 3, 2016 included plans and documents that are intended to meet the requirements of Belmont City Code Sections 7-13(e)(9)(a) and (b). These plans and reports are from a previous application by Mr. Damon Campbell. These plans for a roadway segment improvement were never accepted or approved by the City, and some of the documents are more than thirteen years old.
Based on the City's observations of the area included in the plans, the geotechnical and topographic conditions have changed, and the information submitted needs to be updated to reflect the current existing conditions. These documents will require updates based on changes to existing conditions as follows:
a. CEG Inspection and Evaluation � A Certifiaj Engineering Geologist (CEG) shall inspect slopes at and below the area where construction of the bioretention area and discharge of street drainage are proposed (northwest of the proposed Kraft residence) and shall evaluate the potential for adverse impacts to slope stability associated with proposed new drainage discharge structures. The CEG shall inspect and update mapping ( as needed) for the proposed project development site. b. Romig Engineers update - The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall make observations and inspect the entire length of Monte Cresta Road extension. The consultant shall make recommendations and perform additional testing or borings, if required. The consultant shall also update conclusions and recommendations regarding the feasibility of the through roadway, proposed site development and associated drainage measures after reviewing the findings of the CEG described above.
c. Revised Civil Engineering Plans - Civil engineering plans for street and drainage improvements shall be updated as necessary to address recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Consultant.
Please note that all reports and plans must be stamped by the appropriate engineer.
2. Road Improvement Plan or Road Segment Plan. Following completion of the feasibility report, please submit updated documents and plans along with the additional documents required to respond to BCC Sections 7-13(e)(9)(a)(l-11) and (b), as applicable. In addition, please itemize each of the requirements specified in BCC Sections 7-13(e)(9)(a)(l-11) and (b) (listed below) and describe which plan or document meets the requirements of each section. A road improvement plan or road segment plan must include all of the following:
a. A grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer meeting specifications set by the director of public services. The plan must provide sufficient detail to show 278
clearly the extent and impact of proposed grading, including the limits of the area to be graded; locations, dimensions and slopes of cuts and fills; existing and proposed finished grade; location and heights· of proposed retention systems; proposals for drainage and erosion control.
b. Design for road improvements meeting the standards of Section 7-13, or request for an exception under Section 7-13(e)(7).
c. Report signed by a licensed geotechnical engineer, based on geologic and geote�hnical investigation of the alignment and review of the preliminary design, concluding that the proposed road will be geologically stable. d. Proposed method of. financing road improvements, such as assessment district, reimbursement agreement or other mechanism.
e. Potential timetable for undertaking the road improvements. f. Method of financing maintenance of the road, if it is to be maintained as a private road.
g. Estimation of need for on-street parking and, if required, means of providing it (such as parking bays and additional off-street parking) if the proposed road design does not include parking lanes on both sides.
h. Topographic map showing how access can be provided to abutting properties. i. Any comments received on the proposed extension from owners of property abutting the unimproved portion of Monte Cresta.
j. Environmental checklist and other required environmental data. k. Conclusion from the fire chief that the proposed cul-de-sac is adequate. (Provided for current design; may need to be updated.)
If it is concluded that the plan for the entire road is infeasible, the plan must include recommendations regarding access to properties abutting the part of the road that will not be improved ( such as pedestrian access) and any comments received from affected property owners.
3. Complex Proiect Fee Deposit. The applicant shalr file a roadway improvement plan application and pay the complex project fee. The complex project fee of $10,767 (based on maximum 45 hours staff time) is for the review of the required feasibility study and road improvement plan. Charges for City staff time in excess of 45 hours Engineering will be charged $239/hr. per the approved Master Fee Schedule.
4. Cul-de-Sac. The cul-de-sac proposed does not conform to the requirements of Belmont City Code (BCC) Section 7-13. Road improvements in the San Juan Hills to an unimproved road 279
must conform to the Hillside Road Standards ( e.g. sidewalk, parking lanes, etc.) in BCC Section 7-13( e) unless an exception is requested. Please specify any exceptions required to the Hillside Road Standards.
If the portion of the road beyond the property is improved in the future, the cul-de-sac proposed will have to be removed or substantially modified. It is therefore important to understand how the proposed cul-de-sac improvements fit within the overall road improvement plan or road segment plan to avoid impact to the properties along the unimproved portion of the road. In order for the proposed cul-de-sac to be approved, it must conform to the approved road improvement plan or road segment plan. To ensure this, the proposed cul-de-sac must be incorporated into the road improvement plan or road segment plan proposed after completion of the feasibility study.
5. Stormwater Information.
a. The submitted conceptual design for stonn water pollution prevention measures is based on the currently proposed roadway design. If the roadway plan requires modification, an updated design will be needed.
b. Treated stormwater from the roadway must be kept within the roadway. Ch¢.fy how the overflow from the bioretention facility will not be drained to neighboring private properties.
c. Please note that soils report shall include an analysjs of slope stability after the storm water pollution prevention measures are.final as requested in item #5.a above. d. Response to resubmitted C.3 & C.6 Checklist not-dated but originally r�ived August 12, 2016:
The revised C.3 and C.6 Checklist has been reviewed. However, the roadway plan has not been accepted yet. Future changes to the roadway plans will required an updated C.3 Checklist and may generate additional comments based on the changes made. i. Section I.B. l .e. l has been filled in with impervious surface area instead of pervious surface area.
11. The roadway surface area is part of this project and must be included in Column I.B. l .e. The currently submitted checklist states that there are only 425 square feet of new impervious area. This number looks to be very small if it includes the roadway. Note that after the entire roadway improvement plan has been reviewed, changes may be required that could affect these calculations. iii. Please submit an area plan showing how the quantities of the various areas were determined.
280
iv. Section I.B.2.i should read that it is a high priority site due to the site's having slopes of approximately 48% as stated on the first page, which is greater than the 15% slope required to be considered high priority ...
v. The roadway surface area is part of this project and must be included in Column 1.8.1.e.
Additional comments will be provided when all required documents and a fee/deposit are submitted. Please contact Gilbert Yau, Sr. Civil Engineer at (650) 595-7467 or via e-mail at [email protected] for additional information or questions regarding Public Works Comments.
6. Plannin.g Comments
As mentioned in the previous incomplete letters ( dated 12/18/15, 3/7 /l 6, 4/20/16, 6/9/16 & 9/9/16), pursuant to the Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 4.7.1 l(d)(l)(f), a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a floor area transfer shall be accompanied by an approved hillside road improvement plan. Approval of your Single Family Design Review (SFDR) application is contingent on approval of the floor area transfer.
Both the CUP for the floor area transfer and the road improvement plan will need to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits for the construction of any building.
7. Geotechnical Comments
The City's Consulting Geologist has reviewed the revised civil plans. Items 1 and 2 in the letter dated November 16, 2016 and the comments described in Item #1 will need to be satisfactorily addressed prior to geotechnical approval.
281
RESOLUTION NO. 6523
RESOlUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT
Aflf\lDlNG THE CITY OF BELMONT GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE:
( l) THE SA!-v JlAK HILLS AREA PLAN AND ( 2) THE AMENDMENTS Tu IHE EXISil'JG GENERAL PLAN TEXT TO ASSURE CONSISTENCY BEH:EEr-; THE SAf JUA� HILLS AkEA PLAN AND THE EXISTIN� CITY OF BELMONT GENERAL PLAN'S TEXT (APPL. NO. 86-1053)
h'HEREt\�. the Plarnnng Commission of tlw Cit:, of Bel111u11l lia� c<•ns i.det-ed the propr,sc:-d Sdn J1-1an Hills Are;·, Plan ancl the amendments to the WHEREAS. the f'lanning Commi'.-;s t0n held fifteen publ i(� hearings bcti,een Jui: 1986 :md Octoher 1987; am!.
i,HEF:EAS, the Planning Commi.ssiun reconunended to the City CounciJ a111u1d111e,1L c,f the City of Belmont General PLm to inco1purat t. the proposed S;:u Juau Hills Arec1 Plan and the amendment to the existing General Plan h'Ht.RL\S, t.hc City Cuutll'il uf the· City of Belmont has ,·1m�itlercd the 1-'luJ"J,;cd Sal! Jumt Hills Area Plan aud amend111eut•.,; to the exist iug Geueral PLrn te.\.t: and.
WHEREAS. the City Council has noticed and held pul.tlil hearings on '-'-•\e111l>•.1 Hl. 1987, \un�111bc1 24, 1987. IJl·cen1uc1 8, 1987, Jamw1, 12. 1988, Janw1 r:,· 26, 19-"rn, February 9, 1988. �lan.:h 8, 1988, and Mardi 22. 1988:
:.n1d.
\�1ILREAS, cht: final pulJlic h(:aring was duly noticed, lH�ld, and w;is 1·lused un '1:.ucb 22. 1988: aud,
l-i1lEREr\S, the City Cuuncil reviewed and considered thl' inlon11ati.J11 L:unLuined in the Fin,11 EJR p1 iui to taking actiu11 on thi�. prujt:L·L; awl.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Counc tl finds tl1c t ul 101- in;;;:
Reso. 6523
l. th,it the p10jett and its im1,le111c-nLi11g onlina11ce& i1J<�u1po1alt. mitigat.iuns which avoid or substantially less,!n all thl' ;,ig11ificant t·n\·,n:,rn111.c•11t..1l c·ffects i,lentifi,�d in l11l.'. Elf .. e}:cept mitigatLOn t•J the cumulatively significant trafiic impact tu tb,;2 intersectiou of El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue;
2. the Sr.Ht Juan Hills Area Plan and associated Gl�11eraJ Pl.An a111enclJ11u1:.s have tltt following specific beuefits:
a. �atural Couditiuns. The addition of the San .Tuan Hill1� Area Plan t.o tlll Gene1&l Plan provides fur ioeaL.iiicatiun and mitigc1tion ,.,f geologic haz1:Hds in th,;2 San Jua.11 Hills Arca. Tltes1.· 1eciui1ernents minimize t.he risk of i11j1tt\ and p:upcrt! damage in this part of the City alld assur,�s safe Jcvelopmenl, Iln: additio11 of tl1t· A1en Plan tu the Ge11era1 Plan alsu provides poliq direction to establish design
standard:" fot gr.tdin�, protect. streams. cn .. eks, vegelatiu11, and \iew:,,.
i:. La11d lsc :1111.I Site I1cvelop111cul. The 1:H.ldiliun uf Lhe San JUiclll Hills Arc:·a Plan tu the General Plan reduces the amount a,1cl iateu�. i ty uf dc\-cluµm,�nt J)e1111i t ted by the cut 1 enl Gene1al Plan on vacant. land within the San Juan Hills Arca.
Th,: pcl.ic_�e':> of li1e P]a11 and thei1 implement at io11 h·il] tH.'.lp a,:hi.1�•.e :-1 land use p;rtr,.-rn, den:.,ity, and rli·,,t1 il,ution uf clc\t·lupc1w11t tlt,1t .is cu11c,ic,lt·11l 1,'ill1 t.lic exi�t i1tt -:,Jt•pt: aud g,_,ulug.it· hazards ia Llie .Sa1:. Juan Area. Again. thi.s illli'l u\ e�, th•· saJ et) uf dt.
•ve) op11tl'11l in the au·:1. The Sau
Ju.,111 Hi.Jls Arca Plan ;:.ilsu adds pulil:) din�ctiu11 t·.J cncot.11agc 1ec,,usul. .. d,1t.i.011 allll 1esnbdivi:�.iu11 of e:�isling \;...ic,1nt subdivided parc·,:l:,. Th·.::sr· lot rt:cu11s1.d idat:ions at•� i1'.te11dc:J Cu iidd1e::.::. s1.1e,_·if;x phy�ic,d cu11·�t..1c1111ts i11 lhl· :\n:a and mini.111iLe the ,:osL and physi,.:al i.111pacl u[ rn.:v.' tuatls auc1 c,t.lt•_·t i1:f1,·::;\1ui_·turc irnpn.i,,:m,�uls.
I:1fr·a::;tluctu1c. The addition of the San Ju.m Hill::. ,\1ea Plau tu tl11.. Ge:1e1al Plan wi11 help assure tlwt mh,•quute infr::.iscructure imvrovements arc available J.,pfure permitLint. :Je,·elop11i,_·11L L> pru1..eed. TltL· r.•lan will requi H:' u, u ,111 1ua,J iwpro\·e111ent plaits dlld f inane ing p1 iut tu :,;nlllt i.ng any Luilding pe1 111it,� un unimproved 1oatb. This pulic:, \\'ill pernw.nently end iuc1emcnu1l de\·elup111ent of uni111p1.uvcd roads wlLid1 ha::, c 1 eated p1 uLlerus fu1 Lili: pn,v isio11 uf f j I e and pulice ,�en· i:.:e::., storm drainage and a haphazard palt(•rn of ruad develc,p111eu1_. Th,.:::,f.: 1e4u:i tements w·ill a::.suie safe aceess fur emergency vehicles and th1.. cunslruction of safe roarJs.
-2- 283
3. Llic ;..1b,:ivc 11utcd spcc.ifi,�all) iJcntificd benefit:.-, uf this p1,,1-•.>�etl i.ir,.,jl'CL uut1,l i:): the unavoiuablc �iignifica11t ct11111ilali\'f_• t1df[i.c imt•ac:t. un Lhc intcrs.:,ctiun .-,f El �aminr, Real a,,J Ralston Avenu,.·; au:J. t.he1t.:fu1c. tlw uuavoidable cwnulativ(· Lutffi,: impact i�. •-.:Oll'�i.lercci to be an a,ceptabl<: impact.
:-;oh, THEf:EFOU. Bf IT FTRTHER RESOLVED lhal Lite CiL) Cuuw:il Ji1ecls th<lL tlie u,it.i.g;,,tio1t:� contained 111 th\.· E:iR be in<·orporatcd illlu 1hc !�Oh. THEREFOF:E. BF. IT FURTHC:R RESOLVE!l ti1ai the Cit) Cou11cil a111cnd:o l lw1d1y \.Ct'if:: Llwt tlw fl•l<.:g,,iur. 1c�.olutiu1! 1,as clul, awl 1cgul:nl) p;.1.·"s,:d an-1 adOJ.JU·d b1 llw City C<,un,.:.:il uf tlu.· City uf Bclu1011r al a 1egul.a1 :,:i:., i::;,. t 11,_·1c,_,f l1l·l:l <>ll !'bid: 22, 1988 i:J) tile ful}<,1-.·ing v•Jte:
,\Yl':-.
</it_'.\ •�l I...�IE:: : __ R..;:;o_d_;_r..,;.i..,.gL..:.ue'-='-= z;..J,'--C.B..;:;o,.;.;.
m""b"""'e_r_.
gc.:;.e_;_r_.,_H....;.o_f_f..,;.m;..:.:a_n_.,--"O_r_t....;.o_n _________ _ �1)£-...
CCL11\ CIL'!E'.-l: __ ...c...:::,.;.c_-;: ______ _ None AB:':.:c'.d .
Clt:'.ffJ.PIE\: __ G:;;.;_.:::..:;;_;_:_ reen ________________________________ _ Ab T . .\1'.; ,
CUU�CILMEN: __ __;;_:.;,.:� None
API'Rl1\TLi
Ma�or ut the Cit) of Belmont
4R/1sj
-3-
ATTEST:
�£J,�L DOR01HY- D. L '
City Clerk �he (it�· uf Belmont
Reso. 6523
284
Reso. 6523
Exhibit A
Sau Juan hills A1ea Plan consists of the tollO\.:ing:
.1. Volume entitled, "draft San Juan Hills Area Plan, June 1986" with the attached text changes made by the Planning Commission in Augu�t 1986 ,ind June 1937.
2. Policies as approved hy the City Cou�cil on March 22, 1988. :;, Tin· f(lllo\,i�1g n1aps: 8) Ge1Jl(:gic: Haz;:nd Pol.:.c:, Map, Octol>e1 1987:
L) E�isting Vacant Land and Unimproved Roads. October, 1987 with ('.ll1e,.:tiuu 111;1d,� (•fl March 22. 1988 and c) Land Use P(,l1c) Map. October li.Ji37 ¾ith r:orrectiun niad<· <:11 M.:1rcl1 22, ]988. 285
These cute 4 x 6 postcards are slightly oversized to make it easy to print them perfectly every time — so avoid putting important stuff very close to the edges.
When you replace text in one card, the other card will update automatically. To replace a photo, just rightclick it and then click Change Picture.
Jeff Kraft
105 Scenic Drive
Redwood City, CA 94062
Jeff Kraft
105 Scenic Drive
Redwood City, CA 94062
286
287
Monte Cresta Neighborhood Meeting Summary December 6, 2015 I
288
I mailed post cards out to all neighbors within the 300’ radius of the proposed project on November 23rd and here is a link to a slide show with some renderings of the project from different locations which was also on the postcard as well as my name, address, phone number, and email:
http://s135.photobucket.com/user/jkraft_photos/library/MONTE%20CRESTA%20SLIDESHOW I received one phone call before the meeting from a resident who went through the process 10 years ago. He warned me of the difficulty and told me about some of the things the neighbors and city did which made his approval take many years, then made the building process difficult during the construction of the home, The meeting was held on Sunday at at 2:00 pm at the project site at the terminus of Monte Cresta. I had the submitted plans printed renderings that were on the slideshow referenced above as well as a computer with the slideshow playing.
Approximately 15 neighbors attended and these were some of the comments:
What benefit is this house to us?
Why should we let you build a house here were we will have to look at it We don’t need a firetruck turn around we have been just fine without it.
How big is the house? My response was 3,100 feet. That is to big. My response how big is your house? 3,000 feet. So why is mine to big?
Where will the Cul De Sac be located?
Where exactly will the house be located.
You will ruin my house. Direct neighbor even though there is a wall of oleanders that will screen my house from her view.
What about all of the truck traffic and construction parking.
How will the project handle drainage?
Why do you want to builds a house here?
Is this for you or are you going to sell it?
How many children do you have?
Will I be able to see your house from my house?
I do not want to see your house from my house.
Are you removing any trees?
Will there be any retaining walls?
How will the house be built?
How long will it take?
I think the house is well designed and attractive.
Will there still be a gate at the end of the Cul De Sac? We do not want any home built out here.
289
Is this a done deal?
What will be the review process?
When will Mr. Campbell start his home?
You cannot build a road here Mr. Campbell tried for 15 years.
The meeting was overall pretty non-confrontational with the exception of the direct neighbor who was having a difficult time remaining civil. She was pacing and would add snide comments about everything I would say. I confronted her and reminded her about our meeting and my offer to look at my project from her house. Then I asked her to please be civil and not be disruptive at this meeting, she did not like this. I had reached out to her earlier and had a meeting. I asked her to invite me over to her house so we could look from her house and discuss how my house would affect her house. She has not done so. At the meeting she was gathering contact info of the meeting attendees to obviously rally the troops.
There were some who had more appropriate attitudes in they would rather not have a home there but seemed to understand to concept of private property rights. I was stuck by how the neighbor really do not seem to view this lot as private property but more like open space they control. They felt like they have the right to approve or deny my project and were put off by the fact that I wanted to build a house there. I was told by several of them that I will not be able to build my house and they would see to that.
At the end of the meeting I reminded everyone they have all of my contact info and I welcomed any one to contact me directly with questions or concerns. I specifically told one of the other direct neighbors I would be happy to come over to her home so I could see my lot from her perspective take a photo and do a rendering of my home from her lot. The meeting lasted about an hour.
Jeff Kraft
503-575-5320
290
January 4, 2024
3614-1
Mr. Jeff Kraft RE: SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATION
7 Michelle Lane FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND
Petaluma, California 94952 AND PROPOSED KRAFT RESIDENCE LOT 55 MONTE CRESTA DRIVE
BELMONT, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Kraft:
This letter was prepared at the request of the City of Belmont to summarize the seismic hazard evaluation that Romig Engineers performed for the proposed fire truck turnaround and adjacent Kraft residence on Lot 55 of Monte Cresta Drive in Belmont, California.
Background Information
Background information for the proposed road extension, fire truck turnaround, and Kraft residence was presented in our geologic and geotechnical reports dated June 30, 2008, January 29, 2016, and February 23, 2017, and in our geotechnical plan review letter, dated November 8, 2021. We also prepared a supplemental letter, dated October 24, 2023, to address the feasible maximum extent of a possible future road extension.
Seismic Hazard Map Act and Prior Geologic Mapping
Prior to the 1990 Seismic Hazard Map Act, the City of Belmont contracted with William Cotton and Associates to prepare an Engineering Geologic Map and a Ground Movement Potential Map for the San Juan Canyon Study Area, which includes the proposed site development area. William Cotton and Associates’ 1985 Engineering Geologic Map and Ground Movement Potential Map were reviewed and evaluated as part of our geologic and geotechnical investigation for the proposed fire truck turnaround and the Kraft residence (as well as our previous geologic and geotechnical investigations for the potential Monte Cresta Drive Through Road and for the Campbell residence, which is located immediately upslope from the Kraft property).
The Seismic Hazard Map Act (SHMA) of 1990 required the State Geologist to create maps of potential seismic hazard zones associated with faulting, liquefaction, and seismically-induced landsliding. This information is to be used by cities and counties to inform the public and to aid in planning to reduce the risk of loss of life and property to an acceptable level. In 2018, the California Geological Society (CGS) published Seismic Hazard Zone Report 113 titled “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San Mateo 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, San Mateo, California” and a map titled “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, San Mateo Quadrangle.”
The seismic hazard zones identified in Seismic Hazard Zone Report 113 and in the Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map prepared by the CGS were consistent with the Engineering Geologic Map and Ground Movement Potential Map published by William Cotton and Associates referenced during our prior site investigations. 1390 El Camino Real, Second Floor | San Carlos, CA 94070 | (650) 591-5224 | www.romigengineers.com 291
Lot 55 Monte Cresta Drive Seismic Hazard Evaluation Page 2 of 4 Mapped Geologic Hazards
Since the subject site is not located within a mapped fault zone or in an area that contains soil with the potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction, the potential hazards of fault rupture and soil liquefaction are not present at the subject site. Our seismic hazard evaluation for the proposed project therefore focused primarily on mitigation of the potential for earthquake-induced landsliding.
The Engineering Geologic Map and Ground Movement Potential Map prepared by William Cotton and Associates were reviewed and field checked by the Certified Engineering Geologists that worked on the subject projects, and were referenced in the reports listed previously. Our staff was (and is) in overall agreement with the Engineering Geologic Map and the Ground Movement Potential Map prepared by William Cotton and Associates with only minor refinements shown on the geologic maps in our reports, where appropriate.
Site and Slope Conditions
The site for the fire truck turnaround includes relatively level ground cut into the original hillside with a variable thickness of fill over shallow sandstone bedrock along the downslope (south) side. The south side of the proposed fire truck turnaround will be constructed on a wedge-shaped fill that will extend out over the crest of the existing slope. This wedge-shaped fill will be supported by a reinforced concrete pier-supported retaining wall designed for static and seismic loading conditions.
The hillside that contains the Kraft property slopes downward to the south from Monte Cresta Drive at an average gradient of approximately 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). The eastern side of the property contains a shallow fill placed during the 1960s (see Geologic Site Plan in January 29, 2016 report). The western side of the Kraft property was mapped by William Cotton and Associates as Ps, a slope zone with unstable materials susceptible to shallow slope failure. During our original site investigation, our Certified Engineering Geologist mapped what appeared to be a cut slope exposing sandstone bedrock along the downslope side of the Kraft property (see Geologic Site Plan). No obvious evidence of water seepage, landslides, or surface soil erosion were noted during the geologic mapping performed as part of our 2016 site investigation.
During our visit to the site on December 13, 2023, the site for the fire truck turnaround and the building area for the proposed Kraft residence appeared to be relatively unchanged compared to previous site visits in 2016 and 2017, although weathering and sloughing of portions of the steep cut slope in and below the southern portion of the Kraft property were noted.
Earthquake-Induced Landslide Hazard Evaluation
The potential for slope instability during static and seismic conditions was considered during our site investigation due to the steep site conditions, the presence of fill along the crest of the slope and on the eastern side of the property, and the potential for downslope deformation of the mapped Ps zone surface soil.
292
Lot 55 Monte Cresta Drive Seismic Hazard Evaluation Page 3 of 4 Special Publication 117A, “Guidelines for Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California” (California Geologic Survey, 2008), provides guidelines for screening and evaluating slope stability, and for mitigation techniques commonly used in practice. Provided a sitespecific investigation demonstrates lack of earthquake induced landslide hazards, and the reviewing agencies agree with the findings, a more comprehensive quantitative evaluation or deep-seated slope stability analysis is not required, particularly where the planned development provides appropriate mitigation to reduce the potential for slope instability to below acceptable levels. The acceptable level of risk by State standards is one that ensures life safety in residential structures.
Based on our analysis of existing site conditions, and since no active landslides have been mapped at the site, we concluded the potential for deep-seated landsliding within the competent Franciscan Formation sandstone at the site is very low during static and seismic loading conditions. There does, however, appear to be a potential for downslope creep deformation of the surface and near-surface soils at the site, particularly during periods of extended heavy rainfall. The potential for localized slumping of relatively shallow colluvium and fill over the surface of bedrock would increase during strong seismic shaking. This risk is present at and around the site whether or not the fire truck turnaround and the proposed residence are constructed.
Recommended Mitigation Measures to Improve Slope and Foundation Stability Construction of the proposed turnaround and residence, as currently shown on the civil plans prepared by BKF Engineers, will reduce the amount of rainwater that currently lands on and around the residence and flows across the site, thereby tending to reduce the potential for water-caused slope deformation. The proposed storm drain will direct rainwater into a sump and pump system that will discharge into the existing City storm drain system. We agree with the owner’s intent to install a backup power source for the sump pump in case of a power outage.
To mitigate the potential for deformation and earthquake-induced landsliding that might otherwise be caused by the wedge of fill below the fire truck turnaround, the retaining wall below the southern side of the turnaround should be supported on reinforced concrete piers embedded into sandstone bedrock, as recommended in our report.
To improve foundation support to the residence and decrease the potential for earthquakeinduced deformation or landsliding of surface soil over the sandstone bedrock, the residence should be supported on reinforced concrete piers embedded into sandstone bedrock, as recommended in our report. Grade beams should be installed between the piers for increased foundation rigidity and resistance to downslope deformation.
Site retaining walls adjacent to the sides of the residence should also be supported on reinforced concrete piers, although it may be possible to support properly designed low site retaining walls on shallow foundations embedded in sandstone bedrock. Adding more than normal free-board height to site retaining walls and installing appropriate hillside landscaping should be considered to reduce the potential for soil creep and slope spalling and erosion.
293
Lot 55 Monte Cresta Drive Seismic Hazard Evaluation Page 4 of 4 Summary
Based on the findings from our site visits, geologic and geotechnical site investigations, and information provided in Special Publication 117A, it is our opinion that the conclusions and recommendations presented in our previous reports are adequate to mitigate the potential for seismic hazards at the site to an acceptable level. The City’s geologic and geotechnical consultants confirmed their agreement with our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed fire truck turnaround and the Kraft property in letters to the City, dated October 26, 2017 and December 23, 2021.
The conclusions and recommendations in our January 29, 2016 and February 23, 2017 reports should be referred to for additional detail and information.
The condition of the subject property should be routinely observed during and following construction, particularly during and after significant storm events, to verify that localized shallow slope instability, soil slumping, surface rock falls, and/or adverse erosion has not occurred. Evidence of these issues may require mitigation, which could include adjusting site grades, additional retaining structures, or drainage improvements, to protect site features. We recommend that any deleterious surface debris and/or loose rocks be removed to prevent the potential for its downslope migration.
We make no warranty, expressed or implied, for the services we perform for this project.
Our services are performed in accordance with the geotechnical engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location.
Please contact us if you have questions or comments about site conditions or any of the information summarized in this letter.
Very truly yours,
ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC.
Tom W. Porter, P.E. Richard G. Woodard, P.E., G.E.
Copies: Addressee (via email)
BKF Engineers (via email)
Attn: Isaac Kontorovsky and Ruben Mendoza
RGW:TWP:pf
294
2001 Crow Canyon Road, Suite 210, San Ramon, California 94583 925.314.7100 | oneatlas.com
January 26, 2024
City of Belmont
Community Development Department
1 Twin Pines Lane, Suite 110
Belmont, California 94002
Attention: Mr. Rob Gill, Senior Planner
Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Review
Seismic Hazard Evaluation
Kraft Residence and Monte Cresta Drive Improvements
Monte Cresta Drive, Belmont, California 94002
Atlas Project No. 91-57787-A1
Dear Mr. Gill:
In accordance with your request, Atlas Technical Consultants (Atlas) has reviewed on behalf of the City of Belmont (City) recently submitted documentation regarding the construction of the proposed Kraft Residence and development of a new cul-de-sac terminus of Monte Cresta Drive in Belmont, California. Atlas previously performed specific supplemental reviews of this project, the results of which were presented in our letters to the City, dated December 23, 2021 and March 22, 2022. As specifically requested by the City, our previous reviews were intended to confirm the applicant’s compliance with geotechnical peer review comments initially developed by the original geotechnical peer reviewer for this project, Cotton Shires & Associates which continued during the course of the City’s review phase of the project, most recently specifically regarding construction of the cul-de-sac termination of Monte Cresta Drive opposite the proposed property to be developed.
Our current review included the following scope of work:
Review of a letter titled, Seismic Hazard Evaluation, Fire Truck Turnaround and Proposed Kraft Residence, Lot 55 Monte Cresta Drive, Belmont, California, prepared by Romig Engineers (Romig) dated January 4, 2024.
Review of conceptual architectural submittal plans prepared by Bone Structure, 14 sheets, dated May 29, 2018.
BACKGROUND
We understand that the reviewed letter submitted by Romig was prepared as a site-specific evaluation of the project site with respect to seismic slope stability in accordance with the requirements of the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990, a result of an additional Condition of Approval imposed by the City as a result of the City Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 2023. During the approval process for this project started around 2015, mapping of the City of Belmont per the SHMA was not in existence. Subsequently, the California Geological Survey (CGS) completed mapping in this area of San Mateo County, and issued a Seismic Hazards Zone (SHZ) Map for the San Mateo Quadrangle in January 2018 in which the project site was included in a mapped area of potential earthquake-induced landslides, which includes 295
Atlas Project No. 91-57787-A1
January 26, 2024
2 those specific locations either where past landslide movement has occurred, or where local topographic, geological or geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements where mitigation per Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required to enable development.
Inclusion within an SHZ does not indicate that the particular seismic hazard (i.e., liquefaction or seismic slope instability) exists at the site, and only that a site-specific geotechnical/geological evaluation of the site needs to be conducted for those projects that fall within the jurisdiction of the SHMA. The site-specific geotechnical/geological evaluation is to be conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist for the seismic-induced geologic hazard (i.e., liquefaction and/or seismic slope stability) to be investigated, and the report is to be submitted for the review and approval of an authorized party of the reviewing public agency (i.e., a qualified registered Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist, either agency staff or outside consultant.) To allow development at the site, the report shall demonstrate to the reviewer’s satisfaction that either the investigated seismic hazard does not exist at the site, or that a hazard, if existing, can and would be mitigated to allow development at the site. We note that CGS does not have the legal authority to review or approve SHMA reports, and that local approval is all that is required to satisfy the SHMA requirements.
We note that the SHMA applies only to those projects that fall under the specific requirements of the act, unless the local reviewing agency wishes to be stricter. Per the SHMA, single-family residences of less than three stories are specifically exempt from the requirements of the SHMA.
The project submittal plans describe the proposed project as a two-story residence, not including the upper-level garage at street level. However, the conceptual project plans show on the upper level a small living/entertainment area attached to an outside rooftop balcony. Therefore, the structure could be considered as having three levels of living space, and as such would become subject to the requirements of the SHMA. Considering this uncertainty, the City requested a sitespecific seismic hazard geotechnical evaluation be submitted by the project applicant’s geotechnical engineer.
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
Extensive geotechnical and geological evaluation of the site had already been conducted by the project applicant’s geotechnical engineer between 2015 and 2018, that the geotechnical and geological studies have already been reviewed by multiple geotechnical peer reviewers for the City and that all the geotechnical peer review comments and conditions have already been satisfactorily responded to by the applicant and approved by the City and its geotechnical peer reviewers. The original geotechnical report for the residence prepared by Romig Engineers in January 2016 included an assessment of slope stability at the residential site and surrounding areas based on field observations and mapping, including documentation of Franciscan sandstone bedrock exposures on cut slopes; subsurface exploration, geologic mapping by others, and extensive historical aerial stereophotographic interpretation of 10 sets of photographs taken between 1937 and 2000. Romig essentially concluded that the risk of slope instability at the site was low, with low risk of damage to the residence provided the residence was supported by piersupported foundations deriving support within the underlying bedrock and carrying all structure loads as well as lateral forces from surficial creeping soils; that upslope storm water runoff be properly controlled and discharged, that undocumented fill in the road turnaround area be removed and recompacted and that this and new fill be constrained by a pier-supported retaining wall with piers supported by the underlying intact bedrock. These conclusions were ultimately 296
Atlas Project No. 91-57787-A1
January 26, 2024
3 accepted by the City’s geotechnical peer reviewer at the time, Cotton Shires and Associates (CSA), predicated on City review and acceptance of design of surface drainage of the fire truck turnaround area. Atlas, as the City’s current geotechnical peer reviewer, accepted the previous peer reviewer’s conclusions, and reviewed the applicant’s site drainage design with respect to the applicant satisfying CSA’s peer review comments regarding site surface drainage design.
Romig, in their 2024 Seismic Hazard Evaluation letter, discussed the SHMA with respect to the subject property, discussed previous mapping at the site, summarized site and slope conditions as reported in their previous reports, and performed a new site reconnaissance on December 13, 2023. Romig reported site conditions as relatively unchanged compared to their previous site visits in 2016 and 2017, except for some weathering and sloughing of portions of the steep cut slope at the base of the slope and Kraft property. Romig concluded that based on their previous work, the potential for deep-seated landsliding of the Franciscan Formation sandstone underlying the site slope is very low under static and seismic loading conditions, but that there is a potential for downslope creep movement of the near-surface overlying soils that may cause local slumping of shallow colluvium and fill under strong seismic shaking whether or not the proposed improvements are constructed.
Romig opines that construction of the proposed road turnaround and residence as designed will reduce surface flows across the site, thereby reducing the potential for water-caused slope deformation. Additionally, Romig states that construction of fill-supporting retaining walls and residential foundations supported by and embedded into the underlying bedrock will decrease the potential for earthquake-induced landsliding of the near-surface soil over the sandstone bedrock at the site. Romig does state that following construction, after significant storm events, the property should continue to be inspected to confirm that localized shallow slope instability, soil slumping, surface rock falls and/or adverse erosion has not occurred, and in the event any such movement has occurred, that any required mitigation (typically maintenance) be performed as needed to protect site features.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the submitted Seismic Hazard Evaluation document, the information and conclusions regarding the potential for earthquake-induced slope instability are consistent with all of the previously performed geotechnical and engineering geologic studies performed at the project site by the applicant’s geotechnical consultant, conclusions and recommendations for which have been accepted by the City and its geotechnical and geologic peer reviewers as reasonable. Romig’s opinion that the proposed construction as designed per their geotechnical recommendations will improve protection for and/or provide potential mitigation for seismic hazards at the site such as seismic slope stability to an acceptable level for development in our opinion, appears to be a reasonable conclusion. In our professional opinion, the intent of the SHMA pertaining to this property has been satisfied, and no further investigative action at this site is required.
LIMITATIONS
The opinions presented in this letter were prepared in accordance with generally accepted, local and current geotechnical engineering and engineering geologic principles and practice. There is no warranty, either expressed or implied.
297
Atlas Project No. 91-57787-A1
January 26, 2024
4 We greatly appreciate the opportunity to be of continuing service to the City of Belmont. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
ATLAS TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, LLC
Corey T. Dare, PE, GE
Geotechnical Engineer
Distribution: PDF to Addressee; [email protected]
CTD:pmf
298
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-25
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELMONT
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE ROAD IMPROVEMENT
PLAN, SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA TRANSFER, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, AND EXCEPTION TO PARKING LANES UNDER BELMONT CITY CODE (BCC) SECTION 7-13(e)(7)(a-c) AND AN EXCEPTION TO STANDARDS FOR CUL-DE-SACS UNDER BCC SECTION 7-13(4)(i) TO
ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD SEGMENT AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF MONTE CRESTA DRIVE (APN: 043-165-180) (APPL. NO. 2015-0057)
WHEREAS, Jeff Kraft & Angela Schmiede, applicant and property owners, requests approval of entitlements to construct a 3,299 square-foot single-family residence for the vacant site (APN: 043- 165-180), and a road segment (Hillside Road Plan) at the western terminus of Monte Cresta Drive; and,
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2023, the Planning Commission, following notification in the prescribed manner, conducted a public hearing, at which hearing the Commission considered public testimony and a staff report on the aforementioned requested entitlements; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the project is consistent with the purposes and policies of the General Plan and San Juan Hills Area Plan, in that:
1. All the goals and objectives outlined by the Plan have been met. These include geologic stability with supporting geotechnical analysis; minimizing public liability and private injury; and preserving natural resources and public views.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further finds that the proposed project provides for safe vehicular and pedestrian movement, in that:
1. The project conforms with all accepted City engineering standards for road design to ensure safety.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further finds the road has been designed to minimize grading and vegetation removal to the extent feasible in that:
1. The road has been placed in the most level area of the site and will have minimal impact on the ground areas.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further finds that drainage, erosion control and slope stability have been fully addressed in the design of the road improvements in that:
1. Conditions contained in the project approval will ensure that all acceptable standards for drainage, erosion control and slope stability have been incorporated in the project design. 299
Resolution
Project No.: 2015-0057
November 21, 2023