2003-0008 - Gary Dowd [Applicant] City & County of San Francisco [Owner]: Application for a Parcel Map on a .75 acre site to allow the subdivision of one lot into three lots. The property is located at Manzano Way in an R-0 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 104-28-066) (Negative Declaration)

Ryan Kuchenig, Project Planner, presented the staff report. Staff provided a summary of the proposed application. He noted that on February 26, 2003 the application was reviewed by the Administrative Hearing Officer and determined that the application could no longer be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements. The Administrative Hearing Officer recommended that a Negative Declaration be prepared and the application be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff further noted that no additional written comments were received from adjacent neighbors. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the Conditions of Approval. Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, added that approval of the Tentative Map and City negotiations of use of that property are two independent actions and one does not obligate the City with the other.

Comm. Satterlee referred to the flooding aspect of the project and asked staff if building on that property would be considered building in a flood zone. She also asked how it is determined that an area is suitable for development when you know the site floods. Staff responded that there is not a significant flooding issue on an annual basis. Staff further noted that the site is elevated one to two feet from the curb. Ms. Ryan added that because it was unclear if construction on site would exacerbate flooding conditions the item was taken under submission at the Administrative Hearing. Ms. Ryan clarified that the site is not in a flood zone it is adjacent to an area that is in a flood zone because of the heights of the properties. Comm. Satterlee confirmed with staff that it was determined that the development of the parcel would not aggravate the localize flooding of the area. Staff agreed.

Comm. Satterlee referred to the configuration of the Tentative Map and commented that with the 80-foot easement on the third parcel it was unclear if there was enough room to build a house. Staff responded that the intent was not to build a single-family house on the third parcel. Comm. Satterlee asked staff if it was ever considered to have two larger size lots with the remaining easement on a separate parcel instead of having a disproportional lot with the easement contained in it. Staff responded that they felt it was the applicant’s intent to maximize the number of parcels that they could sell and the configuration allowed them to retain what they needed for the right away with some additional land.

Comm. Moylan thanked staff for answering several of his questions via email and asked staff for clarification on Finding #7 and Condition of Approval #C2a. Ms. Ryan responded that the conditions are standard but sometimes you might have situations where you abandon an easement in favor of another one and you need to balance those when you put together your final map to assure that easements of right of way or some other purpose are maintained. Comm. Moylan confirmed with staff that another way to interpret Finding #7 is to state that you should only deny a Tentative Map if it is going to conflict with an easement that someone is using but if there is an easement someone is not using then it is permitted. Staff agreed that was a good paraphrase for it.

Dan Myers, on behalf of the applicant, clarified that the applicant is the City and County of San Francisco. Mr. Myers urged the Commission to approve the Tentative Map. He referred to the question about the configuration of the lots and gave a brief explanation of why the lots were configured that way. He commented on Condition of approval C2a, b, c, and e and asked for clarification on the timing of the requirements. He noted some inconsistencies between two of the conditions and referenced the Subdivision Municipal Code Section 18.20.250. He hoped the conditions could be phrased to state that improvements shall be done in accordance with the development agreement which is in accordance with state law Government Code 66411. Joan Borger, Senior Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the subdivision agreement has to be executed and then the map can be recorded. She stated that the work does not have to be completed but the agreement has to be entered into. Ms. Ryan stated that the applicant can either complete the work or post the bond to have it completed. She stated that the intent is to make sure that all the work will get competed and the surety bond is the guarantee.

Greta Kleiman, neighbor, stated that she lives next to the proposed Tentative Map. She expressed her concerns and asked if there would be a bike path going through the parcel closet to her yard. She stated that she was very concerned about her privacy and the value of her property. She asked if by approving the Tentative Map that would automatically approve the bike path. Staff responded that approval of the Tentative Parcel Map would allow the subdivision of the property into three parcels. Staff stated that two of the parcels are intended to be sold for development of single family homes. Ms. Ryan noted that the decision to use the third parcel for park like uses is independent of the action. She assured the Commission that the speaker’s name would be forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Department.

Chair Simons reiterated that the decision was only on the subdivision of the land into three parcels and no decision would be made on the right of way or public use of the larger parcel.

Chair Simons asked Ms. Kleiman what meeting she had attended. Ms. Kleiman responded that the meeting was regarding the Calabazas overpass.

Comm. Moylan asked Ms. Kleiman if her property was on the north side or south side of the property. Ms. Kleiman responded that her property is on the north side. Comm. Moylan then asked her if she read Condition of Approval #5 where they will have to take out the existing path that goes through that piece of property. Ms. Kleiman did not agree that it was a path and did not know what the relevance of that would be. Ms. Ryan stated that the existing pathway would be removed as part of the subdivision. She noted that the City has been exploring completion of the John Christian Greenway, which includes a bike path.

Dan Myers stated that the path being referred to is not a bike path but more of a walking path. He did note that the bike path issue is separate from the subject application.

Comm. Moylan had no further comments.

Vice Chair Babcock had no further comments.

Return to Agenda, Reports & Minutes