COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 
 

DATE:

February 14, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

March 8, 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

 
 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Take tentative action on the LCP and zoning amendments for the topics described in this report, and as included in Attachment F.

   

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. To date, the project has included numerous community workshops, followed by 15 Planning Commission meetings to review and refine project proposals. A map of the project area is included as Attachment A.

 

On January 25, 2005, your Board approved a project review process that includes a study session followed by four public hearings. The second public hearing will occur on March 8, 2005.

 

At the first public hearing (February 15, 2005), your Board tentatively approved the items related to estimating Midcoast residential buildout and limiting impervious surfaces and winter grading. Your Board deferred action on the items related to infrastructure need, traffic mitigation, number of nonconforming parcels, and merger of substandard lots, pending additional staff research. Specifically, your Board requested that staff:

 

1.

Consult with the water supply and transportation agencies to determine their plans to provide adequate infrastructure to meet Midcoast demand at buildout.

   

2.

Determine how many residential zoned substandard lots have been merged voluntarily by the property owner.

   

3.

Continue to determine the relative size of residential zoned vacant substandard lots, i.e. their prevalence by size category.

   

4.

Evaluate the potential for developing residential zoned substandard lots as affordable housing, including by incentive approaches.

   

Staff will report on these tasks at the March 29, and April 19, 2005 public hearings.

   

For the March 8, 2005, meeting, your Board will consider the following topics:

 

h

Residential uses in non-residential districts

h

Midcoast commercial and employment opportunities

h

Airport Overlay (AO) zoning district

h

Nonconforming parcel development controls

h

Development controls in Midcoast rural zoning districts

h

Rural Residential area boundary

h

Lot merger in Midcoast rural areas

 

KEY ISSUES

 

1.

Residential Uses in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District

   
 

The C-1 district is intended to provide for neighborhood serving retail businesses. It allows residential uses subject to a use permit. There is no requirement that a commercial use be located on the parcel or that the residential uses be located above the first floor. The C-1 district height limit is 36 feet. The main issue is assuring an opportunity for commercial uses to locate in the Midcoast. A map showing the Midcoast C-1 zoned areas is included as Attachment B.

   
 

The Planning Commission recommends:

   
 

a.

Limit residential use to above the first floor. Residential floor area shall not exceed the commercial floor area. Prohibit reestablishing ground floor residential development after its removal.

     
 

b.

Reduce the building height limit to 28 feet, consistent with surrounding residential zoning.

     

2.

Residential Uses in the COSC (Coastside Open Space Conservation) District

   
 

The COSC district, located in El Granada near Highway 1, is intended to provide for low intensity development that best preserves the area’s visual openness. The district permits agriculture, nurseries, public and commercial recreation, institutional facilities and single-family residences. The main issues involve residential compatibility with open space objectives, and the ability for landowners to obtain a reasonable economic use of their property. A map of the COSC zoned area is included as Attachment B.

   
 

The Planning Commission recommends prohibiting single-family residences in the COSC District.

   

3.

Residential Uses in the W (Waterfront) District

   
 

The W district, located in Princeton, is intended primarily to provide for service and industrial uses that support commercial fishing and recreational boating. The district also permits caretaker’s quarters, i.e. a residential unit inhabited by someone looking after the site. The number of caretaker’s quarters is limited to 20% of the developed parcels in the district. The unit must be located within the same building as the primary use and not exceed 35% of the building floor area, up to 750 sq. ft. Issues include compatibility of residential development in an industrial area, eventual loss of preferred waterfront uses, and providing opportunity for live-work housing. A map of the W zoned area is included as Attachment B.

   
 

The Planning Commission recommends:

   
 

a.

Increase the permitted number of caretaker’s quarters to 27.5% of the developed parcels.

     
 

b.

Prohibit caretaker’s quarters on nonconforming parcels.

     
 

c.

Continue to limit the size of caretaker’s quarters at 35% of building floor area, not to exceed 750 sq. ft.

     
 

Staff estimates that the Planning Commission’s recommendation would result in an increase from 33 to 45 caretaker’s quarters at buildout.

   

4.

Increasing Midcoast Commercial and Employment Opportunities

   
 

The Midcoast is primarily a residential community with more housing than jobs. This contributes to traffic congestion during commute hours. Increased commerce and local job creation can reduce traffic congestion and generate local tax revenue. Options that were discussed included: (a) permitting limited retail and office uses in the W district at Princeton, and (b) permitting commercial and office uses at Half Moon Bay Airport sites that are not necessary for airport related activities.

   
 

The Planning Commission recommends against changing the permitted uses at Princeton and Half Moon Bay Airport until the Half Moon Bay Airport Master Plan is complete, and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has evaluated whether any aircraft safety protection zones need to be revised.

   

5.

Development Controls in the AO (Airport Overlay) District

   
 

To reduce safety risks from aircraft near Half Moon Bay Airport, the AO district regulations control the size and intensity of development otherwise permitted by zoning. The AO regulations prohibit residential development, and limit site intensity to three persons per parcel. Approximately 3/4 of the AO district is also subject to federal (FAA) and regional (ALUC) protection zones. Options that were discussed included reducing the size of the AO district and increasing site intensity. A map of the AO zoned area is included as Attachment C.

   
 

The Planning Commission recommends:

   
 

a.

Rezone approximately 1/4 of the AO district to a new overlay district limiting site intensity to one person per 1,667 sq. ft. of parcel area, i.e., that area is furthest from the runway and not subject to FAA and ALUC protection zones.

     
 

b.

Do not otherwise change the AO district until the Airport Master Plan is complete, and the ALUC has evaluated whether any aircraft safety protection zones need to be revised.

     

6.

Nonconforming Parcel Development Controls

   
 

Development on nonconforming parcels is controlled to assure that house size is proportioned to parcel size. The existing zoning controls for nonconforming parcels: (a) limit house floor area to 48% of parcel area, (b) require daylight plane or façade articulation features, and (c) require use permit and design review approval for parcels smaller than 3,500 sq. ft.

   
 

Half Moon Bay controls nonconforming parcel house size according to what is known as the “Proportionality Rule.” This more restrictive technique limits house size proportionate to the amount of parcel nonconformity.

   
 

The Planning Commission recommends:

   
 

a.

Enact the “Proportionality Rule” for nonconforming parcels in zoning districts where the minimum parcel size is 5,000 sq. ft.

     
 

b.

Enact a combination of the “Proportionality Rule” and a decreased floor area ratio for nonconforming parcels in zoning districts where the minimum parcel size is larger than 5,000 sq. ft.

     
 

c.

Continue to require (1) daylight plane and facade articulation features, (2) use permit and design review, and (3) no exceptions to floor area and height limits.

     
 

The following shows the implication of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for development on a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel where covered parking is not required:

   

   

Maximum Permitted House Size

   

Existing

Proposed

   

1,440 sq. ft.

954 sq. ft.

 

The table included as Attachment D shows the implication of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for development on parcels of various sizes in the three Midcoast R-1 zoning districts.

   

7.

Development Controls in Midcoast RM-CZ and PAD Districts

   
 

The Midcoast includes properties that are zoned RM-CZ (Resource Management) or PAD (Planned Agricultural), and intended for very low density development. Subdivision potential is limited to one unit per 40-160 acres. The permitted land uses include those typically found in the rural area. Height is limited to 36 feet. Staff concluded that the existing regulations effectively protect Midcoast visual and natural resources. However, changes to permitted uses and house size could improve community compatibility.

   
 

The Planning Commission recommends:

   
 

a.

Amend the PAD and RM-CZ district regulations for the project area to:

     
   

(1)

Delete timber harvesting, surface mining, oil and gas exploration and solid waste facilities as permitted uses. Permit selective tree removal or thinning for resource management purposes.

       
   

(2)

Reduce the height limit for single-family residences to 28 feet.

       
   

(3)

Limit the floor area of single-family residences to that required by the R-1/S-17 zoning district.

     
 

b.

Rezone the PAD and RM-CZ zoned properties in the project area to the Design Review (DR) overlay district. Require Design Review Committee review for residential development.

     

8.

Rural Residential Designation

   
 

The rural residential area is a 233-acre region adjoining Montara that is largely subdivided into small lots. This area, located on the rural side of the urban-rural boundary, is designated Very Low Density Residential (one dwelling unit per 5 acres) and zoned RM-CZ. The LCP defines the rural residential area as including sites that are served by utility lines. Although this area is within the Montara Water and Sanitary District service area, portions lack public water supply, and the entire area lacks sewer lines.

   
 

The Planning Commission recommends redesignating the two areas north and east of Montara that not currently served by water distribution lines from Rural Residential to Rural.

   
 

The area proposed for redesignation is shown in Attachment E. The implication of the Planning Commission’s recommendation is that LCP policy would preclude future extension of utility distribution lines into these areas.

   

9.

Merger of Rural Midcoast Parcels

   
 

The planned density for the rural residential area is one dwelling unit per five acres. For other Midcoast rural areas, the planned density is lower. Much of the rural residential area is comprised of small subdivided lots, typically less than 5,000 sq. ft. Among the prerequisites for merger are that an applicable lot or parcel is less than 5,000 sq. ft. in area or does not meet current standards for water supply or sewage disposal.

   
 

The Planning Commission recommends:

     
 

a.

To the extent allowed by law, comprehensively merge applicable lots/parcels in the project area designated Rural Residential or Open Space, with the goal of aggregating parcels up to at least five acres.

     
 

b.

Sequence the merger to first merge lots/parcels occurring on undeveloped property, including vacant land or developed land where at least one lot is vacant. Concurrently, merge lots/parcels on developed property when an application has been submitted to enlarge or to demolish a structure on the site. Thereafter, merge lots/parcels on developed property when sufficient resources are available.

     

10.

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

 

Merging applicable rural lots/parcels 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 Midcoast LCP Update Project Area

B.

Map of Midcoast C-1, CCR, COSC, and W Zoned Areas

C.

Map of AO Zoned Area

D

Table Showing Implication of Nonconforming Parcel Development Controls

E.

Map of Area Proposed to be Residential from Rural Residential to Rural

F.

LCP Policy and Zoning Amendments Recommended by the Planning Commission

GDB:kcd - GDBP0219_WKU.DOC