COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

Date:

January 3, 2002

Set Time:

9:30 a.m.

Hearing Date:

January 15, 2002

 

To:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

From:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

Subject:

Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to approve a Lot Line Adjustment, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412(d) and Section 7124 of the San Mateo County Subdivision Ordinance, to reconfigure a lot line affecting two existing lots located at 801 June Hollow Road, in the unincorporated area of Montara. This project is not appealable to the Coastal Commission.

 
 

County File Number:

PLN 2000-00734 (Burr)

 

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Lot Line Adjustment, County File Number PLN 2000-00734, by adopting the findings and conditions of approval listed in Attachment A.

 

PROPOSAL

The applicant is seeking a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure a lot line between two parcels. One parcel (037-044-020) is comprised of Lot D. The other parcel (037-044-040) is comprised of Lots C, B and A. The lot line adjustment, as conditioned, would reduce the four lots to two, both being larger than what previously existed. One parcel (Lot D) would be increased from 0.77 acres to 1.03 acres. The second parcel, merged Lots C, B and A, would go from three separate lots at 0.81 acres, 0.76 acres and 0.70 acres to one 2.02-acre lot.

 

BACKGROUND

Report Prepared By: Gabrielle Hudson, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1829

 

Appellant: Ernest Thompson

 

Applicant: Kerry Burke

 

Owner: Dianne Burr

 

Location: 801 June Hollow Road, Montara

 

APNs: 037-044-020 (Lot D), -040 (Lots C and B), and -050 (Lot A)

 

Total Project Size: 3.05 acres

 

Existing Zoning: RM-CZ (Resource Management-Coastal Zone)

 

General Plan Designation: Very Low Density Residential (0.0-0.2 dwelling units per acre)

 

Parcel Legality: The subject property, comprised of Lots A, B, C, and D, was created in the Montara Heights Subdivision recorded on June 15, 1912.

 

Existing Land Use: Single-family home and vacant land

 

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map designation indicates parcels as Zone C, Area of Minimal Flooding, Community Parcel No. 060311 0092B, dated July 5, 1984.

 

Environmental Evaluation: Exempt, California Environmental Quality Act Section 15305, Class 5, Minor Lot Line Adjustments.

 

Setting: The project site is located in the rural part of Montara. The site is characterized by grass, small shrubs, and a grove of pine trees on Lot A. There is a house that sits on the property line of Lot C and Lot B and access to the site is taken from June Hollow Road via a driveway. In the vicinity there are single-family homes and vacant land.

 

Chronology:

 

Date

 

Action

     

April 13, 2000

-

Application for Lot Line Adjustment received.

     

November 1, 2000

-

Lot Line Adjustment approved by the Planning Administrator.

     

November 15, 2000

-

Appeal applications submitted.

     

February 14, 2001

-

Planning Commission Public Hearing.

     

February 28, 2001

-

Planning Commission Public Hearing (continued).

     

March 2, 2001

-

Appeal denied, Lot Line Adjustment approved by Planning Commission.

     

March 13, 2001

-

Appeal application submitted.

     

January 15, 2002

-

Board of Supervisors meeting.

 

DISCUSSION

A.

BACKGROUND

   
 

The subject parcels (Lots A, B, C, and D) were created by the Montara Heights Subdivision, recorded on June 15, 1912. The land remained vacant until 1985, when the previous owner, Mario Pelligrini, obtained a Coastal Development Permit to build a single-family residence. The house was built straddling the lot line between Lots C and B. The County did not require that the owner merge all four lots at that time, therefore, retaining all four lots as four separate legal lots. The new owner, Dianne Burr, purchased all four lots and has subsequently applied for a lot line adjustment to move the lot line between Lots D and C and merge the remaining Lots A, B and C. The owner has also applied for a Coastal Development Permit and Resource Management District Permit to construct a 4,172 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached garage and game room above, and a 436 sq. ft. detached accessory structure on Lot D (PLN 2000-00226).

   
 

In addition, a Coastal Development Permit for the conversion of the existing agricultural well to a domestic well on Lot A has been submitted (PLN 2000-00112) following the imposition of Condition 4 by the Planning Commission on the Lot Line Adjustment Approval:

   
   

"4.

Prior to the recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment, the applicant/owner shall provide detailed layout plans and construct a new well to serve the existing residence on proposed Parcel II (prior Parcel A/B/C), the well to be within the boundaries of proposed Parcel II (prior Parcel A/B/C) and to meet all applicable requirements of the County Well Ordinance and building regulations."

 
   

B.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

   
 

The main issues of Ernest Thompson's appeal are indicated below in bold type followed by staff response. A complete copy of the appeal application is included as Attachment E.

     
 

1.

Legal Parcels

     
   

Approval of lot line adjustments subverts the intent of zoning for this area by creating a "bigger" parcel. Section 6901 (which cannot be overlooked) states that "parcels smaller than five acres in size shall continue to be legal parcels only if no adjacent property was in the same ownership at the enactment of this ordinance." Subject Lots A, B, C, and D were in the same ownership at the time of the enactment of the ordinance. The alleged lot line adjustment would not create a "legal parcel" and should, therefore, be denied.

     
   

Staff Response: Section 6901 states that contiguous parcels in the same ownership at the time of the enactment of the RM-CZ Ordinance, that are less than five acres in size, shall be aggregated to a minimum of five acres. However, no mergers were ever undertaken or recorded pursuant to this Section, which was preempted by state law in 1986. State law now states that two contiguous parcels which were created under the Subdivision Map Act or prior law regulating the division of land, shall not be deemed merged by virtue of the fact that such contiguous parcels are held by the same owner, therefore, making Section 6901 not legally enforceable. (Government Code Section 66451.10.) Local government may only require the merger of contiguous parcels held under the same ownership in limited circumstances. (Government Code Section 66451.11.) Although there was a period of time in which the County could have formalized the merger of the parcels under application, the County did not undertake such a program or record a Notice of Merger as available under that program. The sole and exclusive authority for a County-initiated merger of contiguous parcels is now contained in Chapter 9 of the County Subdivision Regulations. The parcels in this application do not qualify for a County-initiated merger under those regulations. The parcels continue to be separate legal lots.

     
 

2.

Issuance of Permit

     
   

Section 6903 states that all development proposed for location with an RM-CZ district shall require the issuance of a permit. Development is defined as the division of land into two or more parcels. In this instance, two parcels are being divided. This is a new subdivision of already divided parcels that must be subject to the issuance of a permit.

     
   

Staff Response: The subject lots included in this lot line adjustment were created by the Montara Heights Subdivision in 1912, and all four lots continue to be separate legal lots. Section 6903 defines development "as the division or subdivision of land into two or more parcels." The proposed lot line adjustment between Lot D and Lot C does not constitute a subdivision because no new lots are being created through the movement of the lot line.

     
 

3.

Conformance with Regulations

     
   

The lot line adjustment does not conform to Government Code Section 66412(d) in that the local zoning ordinance has not been adhered to in Section 6901.

     
   

Staff Response: Government Code Section 66412 (d) states that "a lot line adjustment between two or more existing parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, provided the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency or advisory agency does not constitute a subdivision. The local agency or advisory agency shall limit it's review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances." There is no minimum lot size in the RM/CZ zoning district. Density is governed by "density credits." Each legal parcel or lot is entitled to one density credit minimum. Since this project proposes fewer lots than density credits, it complies with zoning density controls.

     
 

4.

Not Applicable Zoning Regulations

     
   

The appellant has asked for an explanation of the reason that the zoning of Section 6903 does not apply in two prior hearings, and the attorney for the appellant has discussed with the Planning and Building Counsel. The appellant believes that a satisfactory explanation for the basis of not complying with RM-CZ 6903 has not been forthcoming.

     
   

Staff Response: As discussed above in staff response to Issue No. 2, Section 6903 gives the definition of development as including "the division or subdivision of land into two or more parcels." All development which is included within the definition given in Section 6903 requires the issuance of a Resource Management permit. This proposal relates to the adjustment of a lot line between two existing legal parcels and the merger of the remaining three lots to create in total two parcels where four originally existed. This proposal is therefore not considered to be a subdivision as no new lots are being created and therefore an RM permit is not required.

     
 

5.

Summary

     
   

The specific request of the appellant is that the proposed Lot Line Adjustment be denied or that no building of additional structures/residences be allowed on the tract consisting of Lots A, B, C and D without a building permit subject to Section 6903 of Chapter 36, Resource Management Coastal Zone (RM-CZ) District.

     
   

Staff Response: At present, the four lots stand alone as four separate legal lots that can be potentially developed separately. This proposal reduces the number of lots from four to two, therefore, reducing the potential for four houses to be developed should the existing house be demolished. There are no Zoning Regulations or General Plan policies which would prohibit the proposed Lot Line Adjustment. Any future development on the two remaining lots would be subject to the issuance of a resource management and building permit, and at the appropriate time would be subject to a review to ensure any development would not have a detrimental effect on the property itself, adjacent parcels, or the surrounding neighborhood and would meet all County Regulations.

     

C.

BASIS FOR APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT

   
 

Planning Commission found, and approved PLN 2000-00734 pursuant to the standards of Government Code Section 66412(d) and Section 7124 of the San Mateo County Subdivision Ordinance on March 2, 2001. Staff is recommending the Board of Supervisors also make the findings and approve this permit subject to the conditions of approval listed in Attachment A.

   

D.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

   
 

This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15305, Class 5, relating to minor lot line adjustments.

   

E.

ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES

   
 

Department of Public Works

 

Building Inspection Section

 

Environmental Health Division

 

Point Montara Fire Protection District

 

Mid-Coast Community Council

 

County Counsel

   

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Location Map

C.

Site Plan

D.

Letter of Decision, dated March 2, 2001, from the Planning Commission

E.

Ernest Thompson's Appeal Application dated March 13, 2001

   

Attachment A

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Permit or Project File Number: PLN 2000-00734

Hearing Date: January 15, 2002

 

Prepared By: Gabrielle Hudson

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Environmental Review, Find:

 

1.

That this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environ-mental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15305, Class 5, relating to minor lot line adjustments.

   

For the Lot Line Adjustment, Find:

   

2.

The processing of the Lot Line Adjustment is in full conformance with Government Code Section 66412(d) and Section 7124 of the San Mateo County Subdivision Ordinance.

   

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

 

1.

The applicant shall merge the resulting portion of Lot C, Lot B and Lot A.

   

2.

This conditional approval is for the Lot Line Adjustment as indicated on the submitted plans dated June 2, 2000.

   

3.

Prior to the recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment, the applicant/owner shall provide detailed layout plans and proof of a feasible means of sewage disposal for proposed Parcel I (prior Parcel D) in full compliance with County septic, well, and building regulations to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Health.

   

4.

Prior to the recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment, the applicant/owner shall provide detailed layout plans and construct a new well to serve the existing residence on proposed Parcel II (prior Parcel A/B/C), the well will be within the boundaries of proposed Parcel II (prior Parcel A/B/C) and to meet all applicable requirements of the County Well Ordinance and building regulations.