Laserfiche WebLink
REPORT <br />To the Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />From the City Manager <br /> <br />September 21, 2015 <br /> <br />SUBJECT <br />Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit and Use Permit for an eight-lot <br />residential subdivision located at 50, 80 and 88 Finger Avenue <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Vesting <br />Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit including development standard <br />modifications, and Use Permit for an eight-lot residential subdivision, based on the <br />findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained therein, and upon <br />consideration of Addendum Nos. 1 (Attachment 2) and 2 (Attachment 3) to the certified <br />Finger Avenue Environmental Impact Report <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />McGowan Development (Applicant) submitted application materials to the City’s <br />Planning Division for a nine-lot residential subdivision located at 50, 80 & 88 Finger <br />Avenue. The submittal was done pursuant to the October 25, 2013 Superior Court of <br />the State of California, County of San Mateo decision (See Attachment 4). The <br />applications included a Vesting Tentative Map to merge three existing lots into one, and <br />then re-subdivide the land into 10 lots (nine residential lots and one common parcel for <br />the proposed private roadway and guest parking), a Planned Development Permit for <br />the development of residential lots along a private street and modifications to the <br />required R-1 standard setbacks, and a Use Permit for construction of structures and <br />impervious surfaces within a 25’ creek protection setback along Cordilleras Creek (See <br />Attachment 5). <br /> <br />The Project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 7, 2015. The Planning <br />Commission recommended the following (See Attachment 6): <br /> <br />A. That the project respect the 25’ creek protection setback and, other than <br />fencing, no structures or impervious surfaces should be located within this <br />setback area; <br />B. That the number of Planned Development Permit setback modifications be <br />minimized, with the modifications along the exterior of the project site fully <br />eliminated; <br />C. That the guest parking locations be reevaluated; and <br />D. That an eight-lot configuration would best achieve the above goals. <br /> <br />8.B. - Page 1