COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence | |||||||
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY | |||||||
DATE: |
January 27, 2005 | ||||||
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
February 15, 2005 | ||||||
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: |
10 day notice | ||||||
VOTE REQUIRED: |
Majority | ||||||
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | ||||||
FROM: |
Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services | ||||||
SUBJECT: |
Consideration of Midcoast Local Coastal Program (LCP) Update Project | ||||||
NOTE: This report focuses on the topics and amendments to be considered on February 15, 2005. It contains very little new information, but rather excerpts from the full project report prepared for the January 25, 2005, Board meeting. | |||||||
RECOMMENDATION | |||||||
Take tentative action on the LCP and zoning amendments for the topics described in this report, and as included in Attachment D. | |||||||
VISION ALIGNMENT | |||||||
Commitment: Redesign our urban environment to increase vitality and reduce congestion. Preserve and provide access to our natural environment. | |||||||
Goals: (12) Land use decisions consider transportation, infrastructure demand and environmental impacts. (13) The boundary between open space and development is fixed to protect the quality of the natural environment. | |||||||
The proposal contributes to these commitments and goals, by (1) lowering the Midcoast growth rate limit, (2) initiating comprehensive lot merger to preserve the community’s planned buildout, (3) ensuring that small houses are built on small parcels, (4) protecting neighborhood commercial opportunities, (5) promoting open space and recreation uses for an obsolete roadway alignment, and (6) strengthening water runoff limits to reduce environmental degradation. | |||||||
BACKGROUND | |||||||
The intent of the Midcoast LCP Update Project is to review and revise the Midcoast land use policy with the aim of averting future permit appeals and improving Coastal Act consistency. A map of the project area is included as Attachment A. | |||||||
To date, the project has involved numerous community workshops, followed by 15 Planning Commission meetings to review and refine project proposals. | |||||||
On January 25, 2005, your Board conducted a study session to receive a comprehensive staff description of the project topics and issues. Your Board also approved a review process and schedule for subsequent public hearings. The project review schedule is included as Attachment B. For the February 15, 2005, meeting, your Board will receive public testimony and consider the following topics: | |||||||
h |
Recalculate residential buildout | ||||||
h |
Evaluate the infrastructure capacity needed to serve Midcoast buildout | ||||||
h |
Reevaluate Midcoast traffic mitigation requirements | ||||||
h |
Determine the number of nonconforming parcels (substandard lots) | ||||||
h |
Consider a comprehensive lot merger program for substandard lots | ||||||
h |
Prepare impervious surface and winter grading limits for new development | ||||||
KEY ISSUES | |||||||
1. |
Residential Buildout | ||||||
Buildout is the planned endpoint of a community’s growth. Staff determined that there are 3,719 existing residential units, and at buildout, there will be between 6,757 and 7,153 units. Thus, the Midcoast is 52-55% built out. The updated figures are based on 2001 parcel information and existing LCP land use policy, and assume that applicable substandard lots will be merged. | |||||||
The Planning Commission recommends: | |||||||
a. |
Accept the updated data as an accurate buildout estimate based on the current available information. | ||||||
b. |
Direct staff to develop a program to identify the number of unpermitted Midcoast second units and facilitate their legalization. | ||||||
2. |
Infrastructure Demand | ||||||
a. |
Water Supply | ||||||
Midcoast water supply is provided by the Coastside County Water District and Montara Water and Sanitary District. A map of the district boundaries is included as Attachment C. | |||||||
(1) |
Coastside County Water District | ||||||
The annual average demand at buildout for the area served by the Coastside County Water District will be 1.24 million gallons per day, while peak day demand will be 2.23 million gallons per day. The District’s water supply capacity (2003) is 1.13 million gallons per day (normal year) and 0.79 million gallons per day (drought year). | |||||||
(2) |
Montara Water and Sanitary District | ||||||
The annual average demand at buildout for the area served by the Montara Water and Sanitary District will be 0.95 million gallons per day, while peak day demand at buildout will be 1.72 million gallons per day. The District’s water supply capacity (2003) is 0.51 million gallons per day (normal year) and 0.36 million gallons per day (drought year). | |||||||
b. |
Wastewater Treatment | ||||||
Wastewater treatment is provided by Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM). The Midcoast demand for wastewater treatment at buildout will be 1.61 million gallons per day. SAM’s treatment capacity is 1.71 million gallons per day (2003). SAM has undertaken major tank and pump station improvements to accommodate wet weather flow. | |||||||
c. |
Roadways | ||||||
Existing (2001) and projected (2010) Level of Service (LOS) measures for the most congested segments of Highways 1 and 92 during peak commute hours are shown below. The 2010 service levels assume completion of the Devil’s Slide tunnel and additional improvements to Highway 92. |
ROADWAY SEGMENT |
2001 |
2010 |
Highway 92 (1 to 280) |
LOS “E” |
LOS “F” |
Highway 1 (Miramontes to Frenchman’s Creek) |
LOS “E” |
|
Highway 1 (Miramontes to El Granada) |
LOS “F” | |
Highway 1 (Frenchman’s Creek to Pacifica) |
LOS “E” |
|
Highway 1 (El Granada to Montara) |
LOS “E” | |
Highway 1 (Montara to Pacifica) |
LOS “F” | |
Highway 1 (Pacifica to San Francisco) |
LOS “E” |
LOS “F” |
The Planning Commission recommends: | ||||
a. |
Accept the updated data as an accurate estimate of Midcoast infrastructure demand based on the current available information. | |||
b. |
Direct staff to adjust the data as necessary if more accurate data sources become available. | |||
c. |
Complete hydrological studies to determine available water resources, and plan growth to the level that the available resources can support. | |||
3. |
Traffic Mitigation Requirements | |||
The County requires mitigation fees from new development for local road/drainage improvements. In addition, the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) requires local jurisdictions to mitigate traffic impacts on designated roads resulting from large-scale development (generating more than 100 peak hour trips). Mitigation can involve requiring fees or Transportation Demand Measures (TDMs). Typical TDMs include establishing a shuttle service, subsidizing transit for employees, charging for parking, or establishing a carpool/vanpooling program or having a compressed workweek. The main issue involves averting increased traffic congestion as Midcoast development proceeds. | ||||
As proposed by staff, the Planning Commission recommends: | ||||
a. |
Continue to require local road mitigation fees from new development. | |||
b. |
Continue to apply C/CAG requirements to projects generating more than 100 peak hour trips. | |||
c. |
Require TDMs for projects that generate less than 100 peak hour trips and are not exempt from CEQA. | |||
d. |
Study expanding shuttle service between the Midcoast and Bayside. | |||
4. |
Number of Nonconforming Parcels | |||
A nonconforming parcel is any parcel whose area is less than the minimum parcel size for the zoning district in which it is located. Thus, where the zoning requires 5,000 sq. ft., a parcel smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. is a nonconforming parcel. | ||||
Between 1906 and 1910, most of the Midcoast had been subdivided into residential tracts. The predominant lot size was 2,500 sq. ft. (25’x100’) to 3,000 sq. ft. (30’x100’). This preceded County minimum parcel size zoning regulations. Property owners have combined many of the substandard lots into conforming parcels for development purposes; however, numerous substandard lots remain. | ||||
There are 4,899 residential zoned substandard lots in the project area; 3,294 lots occur on developed parcels and 1,605 lots occur on undeveloped parcels. | ||||
a. |
Developed Lots | |||
The 3,294 residential zoned substandard lots have been developed into building sites, as follows: | ||||
h |
197 lots are developed as one-lot parcels | |||
h |
2,262 lots are developed as two-lot parcels | |||
h |
803 lots are developed as three-lot parcels | |||
h |
28 lots are developed as four-lot parcels | |||
b. |
Undeveloped Lots | |||
The ownership pattern for the 1,605 undeveloped residential zoned substandard lots indicate the following characteristics: | ||||
h |
271 lots occur as a one-lot parcel | |||
h |
944 lots occur as 472 two-lot parcels | |||
h |
354 lots occur as 118 three-lot parcels | |||
h |
36 lots occur as 9 four-lot parcels | |||
5. |
Merger of Substandard Residential Lots | |||
Merger is a process where the local government can combine adjoining lots into a single parcel. Without parcel merger, substandard lots in common ownership can be sold off and developed as separate building sites, thereby increasing residential buildout and density. Existing law allows the County to merge contiguous lots in common ownership when at least one of the lots is undeveloped, and at least one of the lots meets one of five conditions, including that it is less than 5,000 sq. ft. in area. County Counsel has advised that State merger law may be interpreted to allow applicable subdivided substandard lots to be merged in a consecutive manner up to either 5,000 sq. ft. or to the minimum parcel size for the zoning district. | ||||
The following alternatives were discussed at the Planning Commission hearings: | ||||
a. |
Status Quo Alternative - Maintain the existing policy of not merging contiguous, commonly-owned substandard lots on a parcel unless a development proposal has been submitted. This approach could facilitate the “selling off” of lots in common ownership, and potentially could result in over 700 unanticipated new building sites. | |||
b. |
Lot Merger Alternative - Enact a policy to comprehensively merge residential zoned substandard lots that are contiguous and in common ownership to the extent allowed by law. This approach could prevent the potential “selling off” of over 700 substandard lots. | |||
As proposed by staff, and in order to facilitate implementation of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, the Planning Commission recommends: | ||||
a. |
To the extent allowed by law, comprehensively merge applicable residential zoned substandard lots up to 5,000 sq. ft. or the applicable zoning district minimum parcel size. | |||
b. |
Sequence lot merger to first merge lots occurring on undeveloped parcels, including vacant land or developed land where at least one lot is vacant. Concurrently, merge lots on developed parcels when an application has been submitted to enlarge or to demolish a structure on the site. Thereafter, merge lots on developed parcels when sufficient resources are available. | |||
6. |
Impervious Surface Limit/Winter Grading | |||
Surface water runoff can result in flooding, soil erosion, and depositing contaminants in coastal waters. Impervious surfaces, e.g., pavement and patios, and unchecked winter grading can accelerate surface runoff, whereas pervious surfaces and contained grading sites can reduce runoff and its consequences. San Mateo County complies with federal and State stormwater pollution requirements through C/CAG’s Countywide Stormwater Pollution Program (STOPPP). | ||||
As proposed by staff, the Planning Commission recommends: | ||||
a. |
Maintain the existing STOPPP, including future program improvements. | |||
b. |
Limit the amount of parcel area covered by pavement and ground level impervious surfaces at 10% (parcel size), not to exceed 1,170 sq. ft. Allow a limited exception, providing that the project runoff does not exceed the equivalent of the 10% parcel size limit. | |||
c. |
Prohibit winter grading unless it is shown that rigorous site containment will occur to prevent erosion and sedimentation. | |||
7. |
Grandfathering Provision | |||
When approving planning amendments, your Board typically adopts a “grandfathering” provision, which specifies that development proposals being reviewed by the County are exempt from the amendments. The proposal includes a provision that would exempt development for which a permit application has been submitted to the County Planning and Building Division, and the associated fee has been paid. | ||||
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW | ||||
The proposed LCP amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State Public Resources Code Sections 21080.5 and 21080.9, and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15250, 15251(f), and 15265. Collectively, these provisions: (1) deem the Coastal Commission LCP certification process as ”functionally equivalent” to the CEQA process, and (2) exempt the preparation and approval of LCP amendments from the requirements for preparation of an initial study. | ||||
REVIEWING AGENCIES | ||||
County Counsel | ||||
FISCAL IMPACTS | ||||
Comprehensively merging applicable lots may require additional staff resources for a limited time. Otherwise, there would be no additional cost to the County to implement the proposals discussed in this report. | ||||
ATTACHMENTS | ||||
A. |
Map of Project Area | |||
B. |
Public Hearing Schedule | |||
C. |
Map of Water and Sewer District Boundaries | |||
D. |
LCP Policy and Zoning Amendments Recommended by the Planning Commission |