AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

manatt $�A. - Page 113 manatt � phelps � phillips Honorable Mayar and Members of the City Council August 15, 2011 Page 2 ' San Mateo subdivided the existiiig lots in 192b. At that tirne, this part of the 4'eninsula was sparsely populated by small farms, orchards, cottage style hornes, and stnajl second hoines for those looking for relief from San Francisco's blustery sumaners. Lots of 7,000 to 8,000 squaze feet uiere likely considered adequate for these limited purposes, and narro unirnproved dirt roads were then the narm. At the tixne there was no way for the County to foresee proposals for multi-story 5,200 square foot dwellings ii� such an area. In fact, because the version� of the . Subdivisioi� Map Act effect in 1926 failed to regulatc the desi�n and impravement of the Higlzlands of Eme�•ald Lake subdivision, it is not clear that the original sul�divrsion map created legat parcels. Since the lots vrrere originally tnapped in 1926, the creel�'s flow has no daubt fallen ov�r the years and the banks have been subject ta visibie erosion. In addition, the Courity did not cansider the numerous environmental concerns attendant �o the Highlands of Emerald Lake subdivisian, much less the issues of excess traffic, soil erosian from deep pier drilling or redirection of the creek to accommadate a Iarge housing developmenk. Such concerns have been more recently cansidered by the County, Redwood City, and adjacent corninunities. (a) The General Plan Mandates That the Hiliside Nei�hborhoods Be Preserved The historical and environmenta] significance of the City's Hillside Neighborhoods, including the Highiands of Emerald Lake subdi�ision, was not Iost an the City during its very recen� General PIan update, which oacuzred less tham one year ago. The General Plan, in Goal BE-8 and Policies BE 8.1-8,3 requires the preservation o£this important neighbarhood: • GOAL BE-8: Preseive the scenic beauty and quality homes that de�ne �Iil�side Neighborhoods. • Policy BE 8.1: Minimize the visual and environraental irrapact of development upon sensitive hillside arcas. Z As LWANA's previous cotu�sel requested by Setier dated December 7, 2010, we again request the City to fully aria2yze whether the ]anuary 12, 1926 su6division map actually crexted lega! lots in light of the 2QU3 decision in Gardner v, Cnunty of S'onoma (2003) 29 Cal.�th 990, 994-1001, 1043, amd more recent decisi�ns in bV�rt Ilorne Ranch, Inc. v. Counry of Sonorr�cr {2�U8) 165 Ca1.App.4th 543, and �ibernathy Yalley, Inc. v. Courrty of Solano (2�Q9) 173 Cal,lipp.4th 42. While not an issue for next week's EIR appeal hearing, vve note for the record that �+e � disagree with staff's summary conclusion in the Sttiff Report that die lots wera lawfully created through the 192b subdivision anap. While no courl decision has squarely acidressed the issue of the validity of a 1926 map, it is widely helieved among tho land use bar ttiat t�ie Subdivision Map Act's grandfathcr clause does not protect parcels map�ed prior to 1929. tSee, e.g., Curtin's Califomia Land Use and Planning Law, p. 147.)