COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

April 11, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 26, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days, within 300 ft.

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision and an after-the-fact Land Clearing and Tree Removal application, to subdivide an existing 36,957 sq. ft. parcel into two 18,478.5 sq. ft. parcels and remediate the land clearing and tree removal work done without permits, located at 869 Hillcrest Drive in the unincorporated Emerald Lake Hills area of San Mateo County. (Appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission denying the Minor Subdivision, and after-the-fact Land Clearing and after-the-fact Tree Removal application.)

RECOMMENDATION

Grant the appeal and:

1.

Find the proposal consistent with the General Plan; and

2.

Approve the proposed minor subdivision, after-the-fact land clearing and tree removal permit, County File Numbers PLN 2004-00048 and PLN 2004-00132, by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: The proposed project keeps the commitment of “Responsive, Effective, and Collaborative Government.”

Goal: Number 20, which states: “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.”

The Planning Commission’s deliberations further Commitment 9 and Goal 20 as the Commission carefully considered the proposed project and found the project complied with the General Plan. However, the Commission could not reach consensus on the flag lot configuration and voted 2 to 2 as they were considering further impacts of the project on the surrounding neighbors.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicants/appellants propose to subdivide one 36,957 sq. ft. parcel into two 18,478.5 sq. ft. parcels, as well as to legalize land clearing of the property and the removal of one significant tree. The existing single-family dwelling and accessory structures on the subject property will be demolished.

Planning Commission Action: The proposed project was presented before the Planning Commission on December 8, 2004 and January 26, 2005. At the first public hearing, the Planning Commission tentatively found the proposal complies with the General Plan, but some of the Commissioners did not support the flag lot configuration and requested a redesign. At the second public hearing, the applicants explained why they chose not to redesign and provided their research to substantiate their original proposal. At the conclusion of the hearing, two Commissioners still did not support the flag lot design and voted to deny the proposal. As a result, the Planning Commission denied the project on a 2 to 2 split vote.

DISCUSSION

The applicants appealed their project to your Board based on the Planning Commission’s concerns and decision regarding the subdivision’s flag lot design. With regard to the applicants’ appeal issues, the Planning Commission acted within their discretion based on the testimony and information provided at two public hearings. Nonetheless, staff is recommending that the appeal be upheld for the following reasons as discussed below.

The Planning Commission, albeit by a split vote, believed an alternative design is possible because of the parcel’s configuration and dual frontage on Hillcrest Drive and Oak Knoll Drive. Staff has concluded, however, that the applicants’ proposal for a flag lot configuration conforms because: (1) the County Department of Public Works raised no safety issues or objections with the flag lot design, and (2) there are no prohibitions to flag lot subdivisions. An underlying issues, albeit not part of the appeal, was the project’s conformance with the General Plan. The calculated proposed density equates to 2.35 dwelling units per acre, midway between the site’s designation of Low Density Residential (0.3-2.3 dwelling units per acre) and Medium Low Density Residential (2.4-6.0 dwelling units per acre). Neither the General Plan, nor any internal procedural policies address densities that fall in between the two General Plan density categories. Since the project’s designation of 2.35 is exactly halfway between the two, but not over, staff has concluded, with concurrence by the Planning Commission, that the project is in substantial compliance with the lower General Plan Designation.

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.