COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 
 

DATE:

October 24, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

November 8, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days within 500 feet

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

 

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

 

SUBJECT:

Consideration of (1) a Zoning Text and Map Amendment, pursuant to Section 6550 of the County Zoning Regulations, to rezone the subject parcel from R-3/S-3 (Multi-Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); (2) a Major Subdivision, pursuant to Section 7010 of the County Subdivision Ordinance and the State Subdivision Map Act; (3) an Exception to the Subdivision Regulations, pursuant to Section 7096 of the County Subdivision Ordinance; and (4) certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, to subdivide a 15,009 sq. ft. parcel to create a 9-unit townhome development, at 317 Sixth Avenue in the unincorporated North Fair Oaks area of San Mateo County.

 
 

County File Number:

PLN 2004-00579 (Ismail)

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.

Approve the proposed Zoning Text and Map Amendment, Tentative Map, Exception to the Subdivision Regulations and certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration, County File Number PLN 2004-00579, by adopting the required findings and conditions of approval as contained in Attachment A.

   

2.

Adopt the ordinance to change the subject parcel’s Zoning Map designation from R-3/S-3 (Multi-Family Residential /5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size) to “PUD-131” (Planned Unit Development-131).

   

3.

Adopt the ordinance to enact, applicable only to the subject parcels, the “PUD-131” (Planned Unit Development-131) Regulations.

 

VISION ALIGNMENT

 

Commitment No.5: Redesign our urban environment to increase vitality, expand variety and reduce congestion.

 

Goal No. 11: New housing is clustered with jobs and commercial services along transportation corridors.

 

The proposed project is a desirable guide for future growth of this area of the County and utilizes the subject parcel in a manner that will increase the vitality of the neighborhood and increases the number of individually owned housing units in the County without negatively impacting adjacent properties. By approving the proposed Zoning Text and Map Amendments, the Board would be reinforcing this goal.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the project parcel from R-3/S-3 (Multi-Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) in order to subdivide the parcel into lots that are smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. If approved, the proposed PUD rezoning will allow for the construction of nine units on this parcel, which complies with density limits in the R-3/S-3 zoning district. The proposed PUD zoning will also allow for reduced interior setbacks on each new parcel. The applicant is proposing to construct townhomes with common walls between them. Setbacks to external property lines will conform to the S-3 standards. Development will consist of two buildings. Building A will contain three 3-bedroom units (1,420 sq. ft.) and one 4-bedroom unit (1,615 sq. ft.). Building B will contain five 3-bedroom units (1,420 sq. ft.). Each unit will have a 2-car garage, accessible via a common private driveway to be located between Buildings A and B.

 

The existing apartment buildings and accessory structures on the site will be demolished to accommodate this proposed development. Public utilities will be provided by underground lines. The California Water Service will supply water. The Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District will provide sewer service to the site.

 

Planning Commission Action: On September 14, 2005, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend that the BOS deny this project. The Commission discussed whether there was sufficient evidence to support the first required finding for an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance design requirements. This finding requires the Commission to make a judgment that “there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, or the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the owner/subdivider.” In its discussion, the Commission focused on the first half of this finding, i.e., a physical condition of the property. There was no discussion of the other half of the finding regarding the enjoyment of substantial property rights. In the preamble to the findings, the Subdivision Ordinance states that an exception to the standards can be granted when the proposed development consists of clustered housing, townhomes, or condominiums. Projects such as this are one of the reasons that the exception provisions were included in the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the subdivision exception.

 

Report Prepared By: Michael Schaller, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1849

 

Applicant: Abdel Ismail

 

Owner: Abdel and Mimi Ismail Trustees

 

Location: 317 Sixth Avenue, North Fair Oaks

 

APNs: 060-091-090 and -100

 

Size: 15,009 sq. ft.

 

Existing Zoning: R-3/S-3 (Multi-Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size)

 

General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (17.5 – 87.0 d.u./net acre)

 

Sphere-of-Influence: Redwood City

 

Existing Land Use: Multi-unit apartment complex

 

Water Supply: California Water Service

 

Sewage Disposal: Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District

 

Flood Zone: Zone C (areas of minimal flooding), Community Panel No. 060311-0252B, Effective Date: July 5, 1984.

 

Environmental Evaluation: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration issued with a public review period between March 10, 2005 and March 31, 2005.

 

Setting: The project site is a 15,009 sq. ft. parcel. It is relatively flat, with a slope of less than 2% across its length. Currently, there are three 2-story apartment buildings on the site, containing a total of 12 apartments. Additionally, there is a multi-vehicle carport along the east property line. There is no landscaping or vegetation on the site. All open areas are paved. The project site is bordered by multi-family residential development on all sides.

 

Chronology:

 

Date

 

Action

     

November 10, 2004

-

Application submitted.

     

March 10, 2005

-

Environmental review document circulated for public comment.

     

September 14, 2005

-

Planning Commission denied project, 3-2.

     

September 28, 2005

 

Applicant appealed the Planning Commission recommendation for denial of the subdivision.

     

November 8, 2005

-

Board of Supervisors hearing.

     

DISCUSSION

 

A.

KEY ISSUES

   
 

1.

Compliance with the General Plan

     
   

The project, as proposed and conditioned, conforms to the applicable General Plan policies, as discussed below.

     
   

Soil Resources

     
   

Policy 2.17 (Regulate Development to Minimize Soil Erosion and Sedimentation). This policy requires development to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. A condition has been included which requires the applicant to implement an erosion control plan as part of their subdivision improvements. Any subsequent development, as part of the building permit process, on the created parcels will also be required to implement erosion control measures.

     
   

Visual Quality

     
   

Policy 4.20 (Utility Structures). This policy requires the minimization of visual impacts caused by utility structures, such as overhead wires, utility poles, etc. To avoid the visual clutter of overhead utility lines, staff is recommending a condition of approval which requires all utility lines to be placed underground from the nearest existing utility pole to the project site.

     
   

Policy 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept). This policy requires new development to maintain and, where possible, improve upon the appearance and visual character of development in urban areas. The existing apartments have inadequate parking for the number of residents, resulting in numerous cars parked in the areas between the apartment buildings. This creates a hazardous situation because emergency access to the structures is reduced and contributes to a cluttered appearance. The proposed townhouse development will improve this situation by providing a 2-car garage for each unit. No parking will be allowed along the interior access driveway and the design of the development will present a uniform facade to the street. The applicant is proposing 3-story buildings, whereas the rest of the buildings along this portion of Sixth Avenue are two stories in height. However, the proposed 35’-8” height of the new buildings complies with the 36-foot maximum allowed under the current S-3 zoning. Also, the footprint of the new buildings will only be approximately 34%, which is less than the 50% lot coverage allowed by the current zoning.

     
   

Urban Land Use Policies

     
   

Policy 8.13 (Appropriate Land Use Designations and Locational Criteria for Urban Unincorporated Areas). This policy designates the subject parcel as “High Density Residential Use” at 17.5 to 87.0 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed land division and rezoning represents an average of 26.1 residential dwelling units per net acre and complies with the land use designation.

     
 

2.

Compliance with Zoning Regulations

     
   

As stated previously, the project is located in the R-3/S-3 zoning district. The project includes a proposal to change the zoning of this parcel to PUD. In order to understand the ramifications of this zoning change, it is important to compare the proposed development to the existing S-3 regulations, under which all surrounding development must comply. Below is a table listing the development standards for the S-3 zoning district and how each proposed parcel compares with the applicable standard.

Standard

S-3 (Existing Zoning)

Proposal (PUD)

Building Site Width

50 feet

Avg. 25 feet

Building Site Area

5,000 sq. ft.

Avg. 1,667.11 sq. ft.

Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit

1,250 sq. ft.

Avg. 1,667.5 sq. ft.

Building Setbacks

   
 

Front:

20 feet

20.08 feet (for the lots in the front half of the site)

     

11.78 feet (for the lots in the rear half of the site)

 

Sides:

5 feet

Avg. 5.98 feet (for end units)

     

0 feet (for interior units)

 

Rear:

20 feet

22.08 feet (for the lots in the rear half of the site)

     

11.71 feet (for the lots in the front half of the site)

Building Site Coverage

50%

34.39%

Building Height

36 feet; not to exceed three stories

35.83 feet; three stories

   

Parcel Size: The applicant has proposed to subdivide the project parcel with common easements for access. As can be seen in the above chart, the gross area of each proposed lot would be less than the minimum required under the existing zoning. If the PUD rezoning is approved, the gross parcel sizes will become fixed with the customized PUD zoning and cannot be changed without the approval of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

     
   

Building Setbacks: As can be seen above and in the attached plans, each proposed townhouse will have at least two non-conforming setbacks. This is due to the limited size and configuration of each parcel. The relationship of this project to residences on adjacent parcels, however, remains the same, as it would be under the existing zoning. Along the property lines where proposed development abuts existing residences, the applicant is proposing to maintain a 5-foot side yard setback. This is in keeping with the existing S-3 zoning regulations. The project will also maintain 20-foot front and rear yard setbacks as required by the S-3 District. From the perspective of neighboring residents, the proposed development is no closer to them than what would be allowed under the existing zoning. Within the proposed development, setbacks between the residences will be less than that typically required due to the reduced parcel sizes and configuration. These unique features are included as elements of the customized PUD regulations.

     
   

Parking: The plans indicate that each house will have two covered parking spaces, as normally required for any residence having three bedrooms or more.

     
 

3.

Compliance with Planned Unit Development (PUD) Findings

     
   

The differences between the existing S-3 zoning and the proposed PUD zoning were discussed above. However, Section 6191 of the Zoning Regulations states that no PUD District shall be enacted for any area unless and until the Board of Supervisors has first:

     
   

Reviewed a precise plan of the subject area and its environs, and found that the proposed zoning of the area would be in harmony with said plan, and would not be in conflict with the County Master Plan (i.e., 1986 General Plan), or with any current land use plan for a sub-area of the County previously adopted by the Commission.

     
   

Staff Response: Based on the previous discussion in the General Plan Compliance Section of this report, the proposed PUD Zoning District regulations are in harmony with the applicable General Plan policies. Additional required findings listed below (italicized) stipulate that the specific PUD District:

     
   

a.

Is a desirable guide for the future growth of the subject area of the County.

       
     

Staff Response: The proposed PUD Zoning District affects only the subject parcels. Development restrictions designed to protect adjacent residences (setbacks) have been maintained. Deviations from the current zoning are only necessary within the boundaries of the project parcel with regard to the minimum parcel size. The applicant is proposing a type of development (small lot, individual ownership) for which the County does not currently have a zoning designation. From the perspective of adjacent residents, this project will look no different, either in density or overall size and design, than other multi-family townhouse developments that have been constructed nearby in Redwood City and Menlo Park.

       
   

b.

Will not be detrimental to the character, social and economic stability of the subject area and its environs, and will assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas.

       
     

Staff Response: The existing buildings on the site are dilapidated structures constructed near the turn of the century. Replacement of these structures with new buildings, constructed to today’s building codes, will enhance the value of this parcel and the surrounding area. Each of the proposed townhouses will be approximately 1,700 sq. ft. in size. While this is larger than most apartments, it is a typical size for a townhome design.

       
   

c.

Will be in harmony with the zoning in adjoining unincorporated areas.

       
     

Staff Response: The zoning in the surrounding unincorporated area is R-3/S-3. The neighborhood is generally bounded by Fifth Avenue on the west, Middlefield Road to the north, Semicircular Road to the south and east. The neighborhood is composed of a number of existing high-density apartment complexes. The proposed project is at a lower density than these developments and from a visual perspective, will be far superior to the existing rundown apartments and outbuildings existing on the site now.

       
   

d.

Will obviate the menace to the public safety resulting from land uses proposed adjacent to highways in the County, and will not cause undue interference with existing or prospective traffic movements on said highways.

       
     

Staff Response: The proposed project will result in fewer residences on the site than currently exist. Fewer residences will result in fewer traffic trips originating from this site. The street that serves the project site, Sixth Avenue, is sufficiently improved and wide enough to accommodate the traffic volume which will be generated by this project. Middlefield Road borders this neighborhood and provides adequate access to Sixth Avenue. There is no reason to believe that the proposed project will adversely or significantly impact local or regional traffic patterns or volumes. Additionally, the project will provide two covered parking spaces per unit. The current apartment complex on the site only provides 11 covered spaces for 12 units. There is frequently an overflow of cars parked in and around the apartment buildings, creating a potential safety hazard.

       
   

e.

Will provide adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to the subject property and further, that said property shall not be made subject to unusual or undue risk from fire, inundation, or other dangers.

       
     

Staff Response: The project’s overall site design and the proposed building’s locations and setbacks relative to adjacent residences provide adequate light, air, and privacy. However, the applicant is proposing to create garbage can storage spaces outside of the garages for the townhouses. Placement of the garbage cans at this location could complicate access to these garages. Staff is recommending a condition of approval which requires the applicant to move the proposed garbage can storage areas into their respective garages.

       
   

f.

Will not result in overcrowding of the land or undue congestion of population.

       
     

Staff Response: The project’s proposed number of residences and overall built density, relative to the parcel size, will not create an overcrowding of the parcel or undue congestion in that the number of proposed units on the site is less than the number currently on the site and is consistent with surrounding zoning requirements and actual densities.

       
 

4.

Compliance with Subdivision Regulations

     
   

Staff has reviewed the proposed major subdivision with respect to regulations of both the State Subdivision Map Act and the County Subdivision Ordinance. The Department of Public Works and the Menlo Park Fire District have also reviewed the project and found it to be in compliance with their standards and the requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance. Conditions of approval have been included in Attachment A of this report.

     
   

In order to approve this subdivision, the Board of Supervisors must make the following five findings. Supporting evidence for each finding is included.

     
   

a.

Find that, in accordance with Section 66473.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act, this tentative map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the San Mateo County General Plan.

       
     

The Department of Public Works and Planning staff have reviewed the tentative map and found it consistent, as conditioned in Attachment A, with State and County land division regulations. The project is consistent with the County General Plan as discussed in Section A.1 of this report.

       
   

b.

Find that the site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development.

       
     

This site is physically suited for the proposed development for the following reasons: (1) the new parcels will be served by both community water and sewer systems; and (2) the new parcels will be accessed via the proposed 23-foot wide access easement, across the parcel. No significant grading is necessary to prepare the project site for the proposed development.

       
   

c.

Find that the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

       
     

The proposal would not cause an impact to public health or safety. The project has been reviewed under CEQA and a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Board of Supervisor’s consideration. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce potentially significant impacts.

       
   

d.

Find that the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

       
     

The proposed subdivision does not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large. According to a recent title report and the Department of Public Works, there are no known easements for access through the property which benefit the public at large.

       
   

e.

Find that the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.

       
     

Future development of the site could make use of passive heating and cooling to the extent practicable because the proposed parcels have unobstructed solar access to the southwest, thereby allowing morning sun to passively or actively (using rooftop solar panels) heat the proposed townhouses.

       
 

5.

Exceptions to Subdivision Design Requirements

     
   

Section 7020 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that all parcels must be at least 5,000 sq. ft. in size and at least 50 feet in width. As was discussed under the Zoning Compliance Section, the proposed subdivision will create parcels which fail to meet these two requirements. However, Section 7020.2(k) does allow for exceptions to the subdivision design requirements when the parcels are located on or adjacent to steep hillsides, rivers or creeks; are to be used for commercial or industrial purposes; or the proposed development consists of clustered housing, townhomes, condominiums or combinations thereof. Chapter 5 of the Subdivision Regulations outlines the process for the granting of an exception to the design requirements. Specifically, the following findings must be made in order to approve an exception request:

     
   

a.

That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, or the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the owner/subdivider.

       
     

Although there are no special physical circumstances or conditions which affect this project site, the applicant is proposing a new type of residential design which the County’s zoning and subdivision regulations are not designed to accommodate. The exception process is intended to address townhouse and other unique development types that do not need a standard 5,000 sq. ft. lot.

       
   

b.

That the exception is appropriate for the proper design and/or function of the subdivision.

       
     

The townhouse design comprises not just an architectural style, but also includes individual ownership of the land under each residence. This is where townhouses differ from condominium developments, where the land is held in common ownership by all members of the association. A townhouse development requires an exception to the subdivision design requirements so that the individual units can function successfully.

       
   

c.

That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property or uses in the area in which the property is situated.

       
     

There is nothing in the proposal to suggest that this project would cause an impact to public health or safety. The project has been reviewed under CEQA and a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Board of Supervisor’s consideration. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce potentially significant impacts.

       
 

6.

Compliance With In-Lieu Park Fees

     
   

Section 7055.3 (Fees In-Lieu of Land Dedication) requires that, as a condition of approval of the tentative map, the subdivider is required to dedicate land or pay an in-lieu fee. Said fee is for the acquisition, development or rehabilitation of County park and recreation facilities, and/or to assist other providers of park and recreation facilities to acquire, develop or rehabilitate facilities that will serve the proposed subdivision. The section further defines the formula for calculating this fee. The in-lieu fee for this subdivision is $143,731.10. A worksheet showing the prescribed calculation appears as Attachment D. A condition of approval has been included requiring these fees be submitted to the Planning and Building Division prior to recordation of the final map.

     
 

7.

Compliance with the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

     
   

On March 16, 2004, the Board of Supervisors enacted an inclusionary housing ordinance applicable to all new multiple-family developments creating five or more residential units. All such developments are required to designate a minimum of 20% of units constructed for sale as extremely low, very low, low or moderate-income households, in any combination.

     
   

Alternatively, the applicant can request to pay an in-lieu fee, dedicate land of greater or equal value than the in-lieu fee, or acquire and rehabilitate existing housing targeted to meet the same goals. The County must approve the alternative method, and that decision is based on supporting evidence submitted by the applicant demonstrating how the alternative will further affordable housing opportunities in the County to an equal or greater extent than on-site construction.

     
   

If inclusionary units are to be provided on-site, any fractional portion resulting from the calculation of inclusionary units shall be disregarded. The same applies to the calculation of in-lieu fees. If the number of required inclusionary units is less than two, then the required unit may be designated for moderate-income households. Twenty percent (20%) of nine units is 1.8, which the ordinance allows to be rounded down to one unit, which must be designated for inclusionary housing. This unit may be designated for moderate-income households at the applicant’s discretion. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the applicant to designate one lot on the final map as the inclusionary housing “unit.”

     
   

A “moderate income household” is a household whose income, with adjustments for household size, does not exceed 120% of the County median household income as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Most of the townhouses proposed in this development are three bedroom units. Using HUD’s “assumed family size ratio,” this equates into a 4-person family. The income limit for a 4-person family at the moderate-income level is $114,000, using the 2004 income schedule.

     
   

Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to pay the in-lieu fee, this fee would total $402,570.

     

B.

REVIEW BY THE NORTH FAIR OAKS COMMUNITY COUNCIL

   
 

The North Fair Oaks Community Council Planning Subcommittee reviewed the proposed project at their January 2005 meeting and had the following comments:

   
 

1.

Addition of design elements.

     
   

Discussion: The subcommittee requested that the applicant include some design elements to increase the attractiveness of the proposed buildings. The applicant responded by reducing the 2-story tall bay windows to only 1-story tall and shifting the bay windows on the top story to the interior facade of the structures. Additionally, the roof of each building was articulated to reflect these changes in the wall structures below.

     
 

2.

Placement of garbage cans.

     
   

Discussion: The subcommittee also wanted to know where the garbage cans would be placed. The applicant initially modified the site plan to reflect a garbage can storage area immediately outside of each garage door. However, staff is recommending a condition of approval which requires the garbage cans to be kept inside of the garages. This will improve the aesthetics of the project.

     
   

The applicant presented his modified plans to the full North Fair Oaks Council at their February 2005 hearing at which time the Council recommended approval.

     

C.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

   
 

An Initial Study was completed and a Negative Declaration issued in conformance with CEQA guidelines (see Attachment E). The public review period for this document was March 10, 2005 through March 31, 2005. As of the publication of this report, staff had received no comments. The environmental review of this project was initially based on a traditional condominium project. After the review period for this document was completed, the applicant clarified that the project was not a condominium but in fact fee-simple townhouses. Rezoning the project parcel to PUD allows the development to occur as proposed. The proposed rezoning for the project does not materially change the scope of the physical development. As such, staff is recommending that the Board adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration with an acknowledgment that the project now includes a rezoning to PUD.

   

D.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

   
 

Department of Public Works

 

Building Inspection Section

 

County Counsel

 

California Water Service

 

Menlo Park Fire Protection District

 

North Fair Oaks Community Council

   

FISCAL IMPACT

 

Not applicable.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Location Map

C.

Tentative Parcel Map

D.

Proposed Site Plan

E.

Proposed Building Floor Plans and Roof Plan

F.

Proposed Building Elevations and Perspective

G.

In-Lieu Park Fee Worksheet

H.

Initial Study and Negative Declaration

I.

Proposed PUD Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance

J.

Proposed PUD Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance

K.

Letter of Appeal

MR:MS:fc – MJSP1213_WFU.DOC

Attachment A

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Permit File Number: PLN 2004-00579

Board Meeting Date: November 8, 2005

 

Prepared By: Michael Schaller

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

 
 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

 

Regarding the Negative Declaration, Find:

 

1.

That the Board of Supervisors does hereby find that this Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of San Mateo County.

   

2.

That the Negative Declaration is complete, correct and adequate and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable State and County guidelines.

   

3.

That, on the basis of the Initial Study, comments received hereto, and testimony presented and considered at the public hearing, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.

   

4.

That the mitigation measures, identified in the Negative Declaration and agreed to by the owners and placed as conditions on the project, have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in conformance with the California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

   

Regarding the Planned Unit Development Zoning Amendment, Find:

 

5.

That the proposed zoning of the area would be in harmony with said plan, and would not be in conflict with the County Master Plan (i.e., 1986 General Plan), or with any current land use plan for a sub-area of the County previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and that the specific PUD District under consideration:

   
 

a.

Is a desirable guide for the future growth of the subject area of the County.

     
 

b.

Will not be detrimental to the character, social and economic stability of the subject area and its environs, and will assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas.

     
 

c.

Will be in harmony with the zoning in adjoining unincorporated areas.

     
 

d.

Will obviate the menace to the public safety resulting from land uses proposed adjacent to highways in the County, and will not cause undue interference with existing or prospective traffic movements on said highways.

     
 

e.

Will provide adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to the subject property and further, that said property shall not be made subject to unusual or undue risk from fire, inundation, or other dangers.

     
 

f.

Will not result in overcrowding of the land or undue congestion of population.

     

Regarding the Subdivision, Find:

 

6.

That, in accordance with Section 66473.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act, this tentative map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the San Mateo County General Plan.

   

7.

That the site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development.

   

8.

That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

   

9.

That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

   

10.

That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.

   

Regarding the Exceptions to Subdivision Design Requirements, Find:

 

11.

That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, or the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the owner/subdivider.

   

12.

That the exception is appropriate for the proper design and/or function of the subdivision.

   

13.

That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property or uses in the area in which the property is situated.

   

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Planning Division

 

1.

This approval applies only to the proposal and plans in this report and submitted to and reviewed by the Board of Supervisors on November 8, 2005. Minor adjustments to the project in the course of applying for building permits may be approved by the Community Development Director if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

   

2.

This subdivision approval is valid for two years, during which time a final map shall be filed. An extension to this time period in accordance with Section 7013.5.c of the Subdivision Regulations may be issued by the Planning Division upon written request and payment of any applicable extension fees if required, 60 days prior to expiration.

   

3.

Prior to the beginning of any earth moving, demolition, or construction activities, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval an erosion, sediment and drainage control plan which shows how the transport and discharge of soil and pollutants from the project site will be minimized. The goal is to prevent sediment and other pollutants from leaving the project site and to protect all exposed earth surfaces from erosive forces. Said plan shall adhere to the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program “General Construction and Site Supervision Guidelines,” including:

   
 

a.

Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 15 and April 15.

     
 

b.

Removing spoils promptly, and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled soils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material.

     
 

c.

Storing, handling, and disposing of construction materials and wastes so as to avoid their entry to a local storm drain system or water body.

     
 

d.

Avoiding cleaning, fueling or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff.

     
 

The approved erosion and drainage control plan shall be implemented prior to the commencement of operations.

   

4.

Noise levels produced by the proposed construction activities shall not exceed the 80-dBA level at any one moment. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction operations shall be prohibited on Sunday and any national holiday.

   

5.

All new power and utility lines, from the street or nearest existing utility pole to the main building and/or any other structure on the property, shall be placed underground. No new poles may be installed.

   

6.

Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall pay to the San Mateo County Planning and Building Division $143,731.10 for in-lieu park fees as required by County Subdivision Regulations, Section 7055.3.

   

7.

Planning and building permits shall be applied for and obtained from the Planning and Building Division for any future construction on the parcels created as a result of the recordation of the parcel map for this project.

   

8.

All future structures to be built on the project site shall be designed to incorporate permanent stormwater control measures (such as using permeable surfaces for driveways and walkways, and building downspouts connected to drywell systems) in conformance with BAASMA guidelines. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure on the project site, all plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Division for conformance with this condition.

   

9.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction on the project site, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. Said plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and include irrigation details. Said landscaping plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last house resulting from this project.

   

10.

Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the County Planning Division “Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.” Once approved by the County, said document shall be recorded with the final map and become binding upon all parcels created by this project. This document shall expressly address maintenance of common areas and structures such as the access driveway and roofs.

   

11.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction on the project site, the applicant shall eliminate all external trash can storage. All trash storage shall be within the garages of the individual units.

   

Inclusionary Housing Requirements

 

12.

The inclusionary unit shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the other units of this development.

   

13.

The lot on which the inclusionary unit shall be constructed shall be clearly identified on the final map.

   

14.

The inclusionary unit shall be offered at a sale price that is considered affordable for a moderate-income household. This price shall be set by the Planning and Building Division at the time the Certificate of Compliance is issued for the unit and shall take into account interest rates at that time.

   

Assurance of Continued Affordability: Resale Controls

 

15.

In accordance with the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the applicant shall execute an agreement and/or appropriate instrument with the County Board of Supervisors, and record a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, binding current and future owners to comply with income controls for affordable housing.

   

16.

Said deed restriction shall limit future sales of the inclusionary unit to:

   
 

a.

The original purchase price plus:

     
   

(1)

A percentage increase defined in the original deed from the developer to the first eligible home buyer,

       
   

(2)

The amount of any substantial capital improvement expenditures greater than one percent of the original purchase price,

       
   

(3)

Minus any costs necessary to bring the unit into conformity with County Building Regulations, in the event that the occupant has allowed the unit to deteriorate due to deferred maintenance; or

       
 

b.

The fair market value, whichever is less.

     

17.

The deed restriction, recorded as part of the grant deed to the first eligible home buyer, will contain provisions which provide the County with a first right to either purchase the unit at the contract price or assign the County’s first right to an eligible buyer. Such restrictions shall include provisions that, should the County fail to exercise its first right to purchase, the seller is required to sell the unit at the defined “affordable sales price” to an eligible buyer selected by the seller. The seller shall not levy or charge any additional fees nor shall any “finders fee” or other monetary consideration be charged other than customary real estate commissions and closing costs.

   

18.

The applicant shall incorporate, as a part of the grant deed conveying title of the inclusionary unit, a declaration of restrictions, stating the restrictions imposed by this chapter including, but not limited to, all applicable resale controls and occupancy restrictions. The terms of the restrictions shall specifically assign to the County all of the sellers’ rights to enforce the declaration of restrictions in the manner provided by law. The County or its designee shall monitor resales of this unit, for purposes of preventing any abuse or violation of sale or resale controls. Unless otherwise agreed to by the County, the restrictions shall last no less than 55 years. The determination of the term of affordability by the County may be impacted as necessary to facilitate the use of Federal or State affordable housing financing programs.

   

Buyer Certification and Selection

 

19.

This inclusionary unit shall only be sold to a household that qualifies as extremely low, very low, low-income, or moderate income, as defined by Section 7910 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code. Buyers eligible to purchase inclusionary units will be selected by the developer in accordance with a marketing program approved, in advance by the County. The marketing program shall set forth an equitable selection process to be used for the marketing of the inclusionary unit.

   

20.

Selection criteria may include, but not be limited to, household income and assets, household size, and the size of the inclusionary unit. In addition, priority may be given, first, to current residents of San Mateo County, and second, to persons employed in San Mateo County.

   

Monitoring Fee

 

21.

At the time of resale, or whenever the County exercises its option to purchase any ownership inclusionary unit, the current owner shall pay a monitoring fee to the County. The amount of the fee shall be set by resolution of the Board of Supervisors, and may be adjusted periodically as necessary to cover the County’s costs to monitor resale of inclusionary units.

   

In-lieu Fee

 

22.

Alternatively, if the applicant does not wish to provide an inclusionary housing unit within this project, then the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee of $402,570. Said fee shall be paid to the San Mateo County Planning and Building Division, prior to the issuance of the first building permit for this development.

   

Department of Public Works

 

23.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant will be required to provide payment of “roadway mitigation fees” based on the square footage (assessable space) of the proposed building per Ordinance #3277.

   

24.

No proposed construction work within the County right-of-way shall begin until County requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit, including review of the plans, have been met and an encroachment permit issued.

   

25.

The applicant shall submit a driveway “plan and profile” to the Department of Public Works, showing the driveway access to the parcel (garage slab) complying with County standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20%) and to County standards for driveways (at the property line) being the same elevation as the center of the access roadway. When appropriate, this plan and profile shall be prepared from elevations and alignment shown on the roadway improvement plans. The driveway plan shall also include and show specific provisions and details for both the existing and the proposed drainage patterns and drainage facilities.

   

26.

The applicant shall have designed (by a registered civil engineer) and the applicant shall construct an on-site private street to serve the proposed lots of this subdivision. This street shall be designed and constructed to no less than the standards for an “Urban Private Street.” The street shall be posted for no parking and it shall terminate in a turnaround meeting the requirements of the applicable fire jurisdiction and the San Mateo County Department of Public Works.

   

27.

The applicant shall have prepared, by a registered civil engineer, a drainage analysis of the proposed subdivision and submit it to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage analysis shall consist of a written narrative and a plan. The flow of the stormwater onto, over, and off the property being subdivided shall be detailed on the plan and shall include adjacent lands as appropriate to clearly depict the pattern of flow. The analysis shall detail the measures necessary to certify adequate drainage. Post-development flows and velocities shall not exceed those that existed in the pre-developed state. Recommended measures shall be designed and included in the street improvement plans and submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.

   

28.

The applicant shall record documents which address future maintenance responsibilities of any private drainage and/or roadway facilities which may be constructed. Prior to recording these documents, they shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review.

   

29.

The applicant shall prepare a plan indicating the proposed method of sewering these properties. This plan should be included on the improvement plans and submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. Upon completion of this review, the applicant or his engineer shall have these approved plans signed by the appropriate Sewer District (Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District).

   

30.

The property owner shall dedicate Sanitary Sewer Easements for any portion of the sewer main which lies outside of existing public sanitary sewer easements, if applicable.

   

31.

The applicant shall submit, to both the Department of Public Works and the Planning Division, written certification from the appropriate Water District stating that their requirements to provide water service connections to the proposed parcels of this subdivision have been met.

   

32.

Any potable water system work required by the appropriate district within the County right-of-way shall not be commenced until County requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit have been met. Plans for such work shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the permit.

   

33.

The applicant shall submit written certification from the appropriate energy and communication utilities to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Division stating that they will provide energy and communication services to the proposed parcels of this subdivision.

   

34.

“As-Built” plans of all construction required by these conditions shall be prepared and signed by the subdivider's engineer upon completion of all work. The “As-Built” plans shall be accompanied by a written certification from the engineer that all private facilities have been completed in conformance with the approved plans.

   

35.

The applicant shall submit a final map to the Department of Public Works for review and recording.

   

36.

Plans, with specific construction details, shall be stamped and signed by the registered civil engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to construction.

   

37.

Pursuant to Section 8604.11 of the Grading Ordinance, a security in the amount of $5,000.00 shall be deposited in a Department of Public Works' Road Escrow Account. This deposit will be used to offset costs incurred by the County resulting from the grading operations. The unused balance of the security will be released only upon the satisfactory completion of the work and acceptance of the work by the County of San Mateo.

   

Menlo Park Fire Protection District

 

38.

The proposed roadway shall be capable of supporting the imposed weight of fire apparatus (40,000 pounds) and shall be provided with an all weather-driving surface.

   

39.

Residential fire sprinkler systems are required in all new structures. Said systems shall have an interior alarm, activated by the flow switch, that is audible in all sleeping areas.

   

40.

A Fire District approved fire hydrant must be located within 250 feet of all new structures created by this project.