Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 9,000 sq. ft. | |
Minimum yards required: | |
Front – 20 feet | |
Side – 5 feet | |
Rear – 20 feet | |
Minimum building site: 9,000 sq. ft. | |
Minimum width: 50 feet | |
Maximum height: Stories – 3; Feet – 36 feet | |
Maximum coverage permitted: 40 percent | |
The proposed new S-81 combining district is intended to be consistent with and adjacent to the S-8 combining district applied to the Highlands community. The only difference between the S-8 and the S-81 combining districts is the minimum lot size standard. The S-8 minimum lot size is 7,500 sq. ft. and the proposed S-81 minimum lot size is 9,000 sq. ft.1 | |||||||||
4. |
A text amendment to the RM District regulations adding a provision requiring, after any land division(s), that a permanent conservation easement be granted to the County that limits the use of lands to uses consistent with open space (as defined in the California Open Space Lands Act of 1972 on January 1, 1980). | ||||||||
Specifically, the Resource Management District (Section 6310 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations) would be amended by adding a new Section 6317A to read as follows: | |||||||||
“SECTION 6317A. CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE EASEMENT. Require, after any land divisions, that the applicant grant to the County (and the County to accept) a conservation easement containing a covenant, running with the land in perpetuity, which limits the use of the land covered by the easement to uses consistent with open space (as defined in the California Open Space Lands Act of 1972 on January 1, 1980). The boundaries of the conservation easement may be modified by the parties for purposes of health, safety and maintenance of the uses allowed at the time of the subdivision provided that the original intent and purposes of the conservation easement are maintained. | |||||||||
The land subject to a conservation easement is that land which is not designated for development under a Master Land Division Plan under the requirements of Chapter 23 (Development Review Procedure). The boundaries between the land designated as a conservation easement and the land available for development shall be chosen, at a minimum, so that improvements allowable at the time of subdivision may be made in areas outside the conservation easement, provided however, that no increase in density credits is implied or created and any development planned under this provision will be subject to the State laws and County regulations in place at the time the development is sought to be implemented. For purposes of Section 6317A, a “land division” does not include: | |||||||||
A. |
A lot line adjustment unless the proposed lot line adjustment will increase the intensity of use or density credits of the master parcel. | ||||||||
B. |
A land division resulting from a transfer of land to a public agency or non-profit organization for public recreation or open space purposes provided that the land acquired by the government agency or non-profit organization is dedicated as public open space or parkland in perpetuity.” | ||||||||
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission considered the proposal at its June 27, 2007 public hearing, and continued the matter until the July 11, 2007 hearing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project at its July 11, 2007 hearing. Oral testimony was provided at both hearings by Lisa Grote, Community Development Director, Matt Seubert, Senior Planner, and Mary Raftery, Deputy County Counsel. Significant public comment was received at both public hearings, as well as before, between, and after the hearings. Public comments and staff responses are summarized in Section D of the Discussion Section of this report and complete responses are provided in Attachments P through S. | |||||||||
Report Prepared By: Neal Martin, Neal Martin & Associates, Planning Consultants; Matt Seubert, Senior Planner; William Gibson, Project Planner | |||||||||
Applicant: Project Initiated by San Mateo County Planning and Building Department Staff at request of the Board of Supervisors on February 27, 2007. | |||||||||
Owner: Ticonderoga Partners LLP (APN 041-101-290) | |||||||||
Location: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre Portion General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Rezoning | |||||||||
The portion is identified as an 11.78-acre portion of Assessors Parcel Number 041-101-290. The entire Assessor’s parcel contains approximately 99 acres. The 11.78-acre portion is located at the northwesterly corner of Polhemus Road (County Road 17) and Ticonderoga Drive in the unincorporated San Mateo Highlands area (see Attachment C). The San Mateo Highlands area is situated between the San Francisco Peninsula Watershed lands and Interstate 280 on the west, State Route 92 freeway on the south, Polhemus Creek and Polhemus Road on the east and San Mateo Creek and Crystal Springs Road on the north. | |||||||||
The 11.78-acre portion of APN 041-101-290 is bounded on the south by Ticonderoga Drive, on the west by a line perpendicular to Cobblehill Place and parallel to New Brunswick Drive, on the north by a line approximately 150 feet beyond the northern property boundary of the Hillsborough West Apartments, and on the east by Polhemus Road and the western property boundary of the Hillsborough West Apartments. The 9,000 sq. ft. portion of the parcel is located at the southwest edge of the 11.78-acre area, at the northeastern end of Cobblehill Place (see Attachment E). | |||||||||
The Proposed RM District Text Amendment | |||||||||
The proposed zoning text amendment would apply to all properties currently zoned Resource Management (RM) District in unincorporated San Mateo County. Those properties are generally located on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains (east of Skyline Boulevard), extending to the beginning of the San Francisco Bay Plain (the | |||||||||
urbanized and primarily incorporated areas between the Bay and the foothills) (see Attachment H). | |||||||||
APNs: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
041-101-290 (An 11.78-acre portion of the total 99-acre parcel) | |||||||||
The Proposed RM District Text Amendment | |||||||||
Approximately 1,627 Assessor’s parcels would be affected by the proposed amendment. A map is attached (Attachment H). | |||||||||
Size: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
Approximately 11.78 acres | |||||||||
Existing Zoning: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
R-E/SS-107 (One-Family Residential Estates/Zoning Development Standards SS-107) District | |||||||||
The Proposed RM District Text Amendment | |||||||||
RM (Resource Management) District | |||||||||
General Plan Designation: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
General Open Space | |||||||||
The Proposed RM District Text Amendment | |||||||||
General Open Space, although this may vary, as all RM zoned parcels may not necessarily be designated as Open Space. | |||||||||
Sphere-of-Influence: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
City of San Mateo | |||||||||
Existing Land Use: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
Undeveloped Open Space | |||||||||
Water Supply: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
Water is currently not supplied to the project site. Water is available from the California Water Service Company, which supplies water to the adjoining Highlands neighborhood. | |||||||||
Sewage Disposal: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
Sewage disposal is not currently available to the project site. The project site is included in the Crystal Springs County Sanitation District. The CSCSD has sufficient capacity in its collection system to accommodate the proposed density allowed by the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. The CSCSD contracts with the City of San Mateo for sewage treatment. The City of San Mateo Sewage Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed density allowed by the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. | |||||||||
Flood Zone: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
Zone C, area of minimal flooding, Community Panel No. 060311-0140B | |||||||||
Environmental Evaluation: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
An Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment O) were prepared and made available for public review on June 5, 2007, at least 20 days prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified by the County Clerk on June 5, 2007. | |||||||||
The Proposed RM District Text Amendment | |||||||||
This portion of the Proposed Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines). Section 15308 exempts actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment. Please see the “Project Description” section of the Initial Study (Attachment O) for a detailed discussion of this determination. | |||||||||
Setting: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
The 11.78-acre portion is characterized by steep slopes (slopes range from 15% to over 50% with an average slope of approximately 35%) and by coastal oak woodland vegetation consisting of California live oak trees, coastal scrub and mixed chaparral. A drainage runs generally in a northeast direction across the portion beginning at the rear of the homes on New Brunswick Drive north of Cowpens Way and extending down to the Hillsborough West Apartments on Polhemus Road. | |||||||||
Chronology: | |||||||||
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | |||||||||
This part of the project addresses a portion of a 99-acre parcel adjacent to the San Mateo Highlands area that currently has “dual designation” or “split” zoning. Although it is one parcel, approximately 87 acres of the parcel are zoned RM, and approximately 11.78 acres are zoned R-E/SS-107. A subdivision and development application is currently pending on the RM portion of the property, but not the 11.78-acre portion zoned R-E/SS-107, thereby raising questions regarding the development potential of the 11.78-acre portion. The application seeks to subdivide the property, creating eight residential lots on the RM zoned property, and designating the 11.78-acre portion as a “designated remainder” under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. No development is currently proposed on the 11.78-acre site. While the current zoning would allow only two units on that portion once it is created, the property could be proposed for rezoning in the future. The topography and other characteristics of the 11.78-acre portion may make it suitable for the two units that could be built under current zoning, but concerns have been raised whether the property should carry any greater density of development. In February 2007, the Board of Supervisors asked the Planning and Building Department to prepare a proposal for review and consideration that would rezone the 11.78-acre portion in a manner that preserves existing density and also to create a text amendment that would make RM zoning regulations for land divisions in the Bayside consistent with RM zoning in the Coastal Zone (RM-CZ). | |||||||||
If approved, the project will rezone most of the 11.78-acre portion to RM, making it more consistent with the rest of the parcel zoned RM. In order to maintain the current development potential of the site, the project will also create a second portion of 9,000 sq. ft. zoned R-1/S-81. This will require a General Plan Amendment and rezoning. | |||||||||
The RM zoning regulations, in both the Bayside and Coastal Area (RM-CZ), are designed to ensure that the full development potential of constrained property, such as the property that is the subject of this application, is decided at the time that property is subdivided. The text amendment will require the dedication of a conservation easement on the area of the property that is not designated or intended for development as a condition of approval of a land division, thereby promoting permanent open space conservation Countywide and strengthening the intent of the RM zoning requirements. The Planning Commission and staff believe that the project as proposed will facilitate in limiting home sizes and promoting cluster development on sites in the RM District by limiting overall developable site size, and retaining a significant portion of the site as open space, consistent with the objectives of the County’s zoning regulations. If the RM zoning designation is extended to a portion of the 11.78-acre property currently zoned RE/SS-107, the areas of that portion would be subject to review and planning for future development potential. Areas that are not designated for development could be made the subject of an open space easement as well. | |||||||||
For a detailed description of the chronology on the 99-acre property, please see the November 30, 2004 Staff Report to the Board of Supervisors from the Director of Environmental Services, attached as Attachment N. | |||||||||
Date |
Action | ||||||||
Prior to 1958 |
- |
The entire property and adjacent 3-acre site on Polhemus Road, ultimately developed as Hillsborough West Apartments, were zoned R-1, allowing single-family residences with a minimum parcel size of 7,500 sq. ft. or approximately six parcels per acre. | |||||||
January 1958 |
- |
The Board of Supervisors rezoned the adjacent 3-acre parcel (Hillsborough West Apartments) from R-1 to R-3, allowing multiple-family development. | |||||||
June 1958 |
- |
The Board of Supervisors rezoned the entire 99-acre parcel to R-E/BD, a residential estates zoning designation allowing for one unit per five acres. The “BD” zoning overlay district was later changed to “SS-107,” but it did not change the minimum 5-acre parcel size. | |||||||
1976 |
- |
The Board of Supervisors rezoned the property, with the exception of the 11.78-acre area to the RM District. The 11.78-acre portion was retained in the R-E/SS-107 zoning district. | |||||||
February 2007 |
- |
The Board of Supervisors directs the Planning and Building Department to consider rezoning alternatives. | |||||||
DISCUSSION | |||||||||
A. |
KEY ISSUES | ||||||||
1. |
The Proposed General Plan Amendment | ||||||||
a. |
Conformance with the General Plan | ||||||||
The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed redesignation of the 9,000 sq. ft. portion of the 11.78-acre portion of APN 041-101-290 from General Open Space to Medium-Low Density Residential land use, and found that it is consistent with all General Plan goals and policies, including the following specific goals and policies: | |||||||||
7.3, Infrastructure, calls for distribution of land uses where public services and facilities exist or can be feasibly provided. The 9,000 sq. ft. portion proposed for designation as Medium-Low Density Residential is directly adjacent to other areas already designated Medium-Low Density Residential, is located at the end of the existing Cobblehill Road, and is in an area with existing available water and sewer services. By specifying this 9,000 sq. ft. portion as the preferred location for residential development, the proposed amendment ensures that such development remains in proximity to existing infrastructure. | |||||||||
7.4, Natural Resources, calls for the designation of land uses in a manner that enhances the protection and management of natural resources. The 9,000 sq. ft. portion proposed for Medium-Low Density Residential designation is directly adjacent to other areas already designated Medium-Low Density Residential. Designation of this portion of the portion for residential uses indicates the preferred location of development on this site, incentivizes contiguous development with already development areas, and helps to maintain the remainder of the site as open space. | |||||||||
7.16, Location of Land Use Designations, affirms the policies stated in 7.3 and 7.4, above, and calls for the location of land use designations to discourage urban sprawl. If approved, the project would achieve these goals by promoting development contiguous with other areas designated for residential development, and adjacent to existing infrastructure, while retaining the open space designation for the remainder of the parcel. | |||||||||
In addition, the site meets the locational criteria specified for Medium-Low Density Residential land use designation in Table 8.1P of the General Plan. The site is adjacent to an existing medium-low density area, is adjacent to potentially sensitive habitats, is situated on hillside areas with steep slopes, and is not within areas of high-perceived noise levels. | |||||||||
Overall, the General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the character, social and economic stability of the subject area and its environs, will help guide the location of future development on the subject parcel in conformity with the goals of the General Plan, and will further the goal of promoting clustered development. In combination with other actions recommended herein, the amendment will further the goal of preserving open space. | |||||||||
2. |
The Proposed Zoning Text Amendment, Map Amendment and Rezoning | ||||||||
a. |
Creation of a New S-81 Combining District | ||||||||
The proposed new S-81 combining district, as described in the Proposal section, above, is intended to be consistent with and adjacent to the S-8 combining district applied to the Highlands community. The only difference between the S-8 and the S-81 combining districts is the minimum lot size standard. The S-8 minimum lot size is 7,500 sq. ft. and the proposed S-81 minimum lot size is 9,000 sq. ft.2 The proposed development standards for the district are as follows: | |||||||||
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 9,000 sq. ft. | |||||||||
Minimum yards required: Front – 20 feet; Side – 5 feet; Rear – 20 feet | |||||||||
Minimum building site: 9,000 sq. ft. | |||||||||
Minimum width: 50 feet | |||||||||
Maximum height: Stories – 3; Feet – 36 feet | |||||||||
Maximum coverage permitted: 40 percent | |||||||||
(1) |
Conformance with the General Plan | ||||||||
The creation of the new zoning district, to be applied to the 9,000 sq. ft. area in the Highlands District, conforms to the following General Plan goals and policies: | |||||||||
7.3, Infrastructure, calls for distribution of land uses where public services and facilities exist or can be feasibly provided. The 9,000 sq. ft. portion is directly adjacent to areas designated R-1/S-8, is located at the end of the existing Cobblehill Road, and is in an area with existing available water and sewer services. By specifying this 9,000 sq. ft. portion as the preferred location for residential development, the proposed amendment ensures that such development remains in proximity to existing infrastructure. | |||||||||
7.16, Location of Land Use Designations, affirms the policies stated in 7.3, above, and calls for the location of land use designations to discourage urban sprawl. If approved, the new zoning district, to be applied to the 9,000 sq. ft. portion, would achieve these goals by promoting development contiguous with R-1/S-8 zoned areas designated for residential development, and adjacent to existing infrastructure. | |||||||||
8.36, Density, calls for the regulation of maximum allowable densities in zoning districts in order to (1) ensure a level of development that is consistent with land use designations, (2) plan for the efficient provision of public facilities, services, and infrastructure. The R-1/S-81 designation will ensure a level of development consistent with Medium-Low Density Residential designation proposed for the subject property, and currently in place in immediately adjacent areas. Development levels allowed by this district will be consistent with existing levels of public facilities, services, and infrastructure available. | |||||||||
The R-1/S-81 zoning designation will be compatible with adjacent R-1/S-8 zoning districts, creating congruent, contiguous residential zoning districts that do not divide or fragment open space. Creation of the new zoning district would help guide the future growth of the subject area of the County in a desirable manner, would not be detrimental to the character, social and economic stability of the subject area and its environs, and would help guide the location of future development on the subject parcel and further the goal of promoting clustered development. | |||||||||
b. |
Rezoning the 11.78-acre portion of APN 041-101-290 from R-E to 9,000 sq. ft. of R-1/S-81 and approximately 11.57 acres of RM | ||||||||
(1) |
Conformance with the General Plan | ||||||||
The proposed amendment conforms to the following General Plan goals and policies: | |||||||||
7.3, Infrastructure, calls for distribution of land uses where public services and facilities exist or can be feasibly provided. The 9,000 sq. ft. portion proposed for rezoning is directly adjacent to other areas already zoned for residential development of comparable type and density, is located at the end of the existing Cobblehill Road, and is in an area with existing available water and sewer services. By specifying this 9,000 sq. ft. portion as the preferred location for residential development, the proposed amendment ensures that such development remains in proximity to existing infrastructure. | |||||||||
7.4, Natural Resources, calls for the designation of land uses in a manner that enhances the protection and management of natural resources. The 9,000 sq. ft. portion is directly adjacent to other areas already zoned for residential development. Designation of this portion of the parcel for residential uses indicates the preferred location of development on this site, incentivizes contiguous development with already development areas, and helps to maintain the remainder of the site as open space. | |||||||||
7.16, Location of Land Use Designations, affirms the policies stated in 7.3 and 7.4, above, and calls for the location of land use designations to discourage urban sprawl. If approved, the project would achieve these goals by promoting development contiguous with other areas designated for residential development, and adjacent to existing infrastructure, while retaining the open space designation for the remainder of the parcel. | |||||||||
8.36, Density, calls for the regulation of maximum allowable densities in zoning districts in order to (1) ensure a level of development that is consistent with land use designations, (2) plan for the efficient provision of public facilities, services, and infrastructure. The RM zoning is also consistent with the General Open Space land use designation that will remain applicable for this portion of the site under the proposed project. Rezoning the 9,000 sq. ft. portion for residential uses (R-1) is also consistent with the proposed Medium-Low Density Residential land use designation for this portion of the site. By locating preferred residential development near existing facilities, the rezoning also promotes efficient use of facilities. | |||||||||
9.41, Criteria for the Division of Land Designated General Open Space, calls for clustering development in smaller parcels in order to maintain larger parcels as open space. Rezoning 9,000 sq. ft. to R-1/S-81, and the remainder of the 11.78-acre portion of the parcel to the more restrictive RM District, helps achieve this goal. | |||||||||
(2) |
Development on Hillside with Potential Slope Stability Problems | ||||||||
The hillsides found on the 11.78-acre project site and within the 99-acre parcel have experienced various forms of slope instability in the past. Research work and geologic hazard mapping by the USGS has identified the site to be moderately susceptible to landsliding. According to a seismic slope stability map for San Mateo County, the site is located in an area with the highest category of susceptibility to landsliding during a major earthquake. | |||||||||
Soil Foundation Systems, Inc. conducted a number of geotechnical studies of the 99-acre parcel (including the 11.78-acre project site) between 1993 and 2006. No landslides were identified within the area of the Proposed Project except for an area of slope instability that occurred behind the Hillsborough West Apartments during construction in the 1960s. The extent of the area of instability is unknown, but may have extended upward into the project area. | |||||||||
The site is underlain by Franciscan mélange, which is characterized by a chaotic mixture of materials with varying engineering properties. Slope stability and geologic conditions on the project site are considered potentially significant impacts as described in the Initial Study accompanying this report. | |||||||||
There are no known active or potentially active faults mapped as crossing or projecting toward the project site, nor is the site located within a State designated fault zone. However, the project site is located approximately 0.6 miles northwest of the mapped trace of the San Andreas Fault zone. The project site is therefore subject to strong earthquake ground shaking that could cause significant damage to buildings, structures, improvements, earthwork and slopes, and in extreme cases, loss of life, on the project site. | |||||||||
Previous environmental and geotechnical studies have stated that potential impacts associated with slope stability, geologic conditions and strong earthquake ground shaking can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by imposing mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study and summarized below. | |||||||||
LSG-1.c. |
Require geotechnical observations and, if necessary, additional geotechnical investigations during grading operations and construction activity. | ||||||||
LSG-1.d.1 |
Require that modern seismic design criteria be used in construction for resistance to lateral forces. | ||||||||
LSG-1.d.2 |
Require appropriate grading and design. | ||||||||
LSG-1.d.3 |
Require fill to be properly placed and compacted. | ||||||||
LSG-1.d.4 |
Require all roads, foundations and utilities be designed to react acceptably under seismic conditions. | ||||||||
LSG-1.d.5 |
Require that final design of all project components be in compliance with the recommendations of a detailed design-level geotechnical investigation and recommendations | ||||||||
The proposed Rezoning and General Plan Amendment do not contemplate any specific development proposals for the 11.78-acre site at this time, or for the 9,000 sq. ft. portion of the project site. The mitigation measures listed above would be applicable only if development were proposed on the project site, and would be made conditions of approval of any project determined to require these measures. | |||||||||
Key differences between the R-E and R-1 Districts include the following: the R-E District allows riding academies with a use permit, as well as servant quarters and non-commercial guest houses, which are not allowed in the R-1 District, while the R-1 District allows reverse vending machines and small recycling collection facilities, which are not allowed in the R-E District. Key differences between SS-107 and the proposed S-81 District are as follows: the SS-107 District requires setbacks of 50 feet on the front and sides, and 20 feet in the rear, while the proposed S-81 District would require only 20-foot front and rear setbacks, and 5 feet on the sides. The S-81 District would allow a much smaller parcel size of 9,000 sq. ft., compared to the 5-acre minimum of the SS-107. The proposed S-81 District would also stipulate a maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, and minimum lot width, none of which are specified in the SS-107 District. | |||||||||
The SS-107 and RM Districts have similar setback requirements, the primary difference being a 20-foot side setback requirement in the RM District, compared to a 50-foot requirement in the SS-107 District. Again, the SS-107 does not specify a maximum building height, while the absolute height limit in the RM District is three stories or 36 feet. The RM District also has specific development review criteria, maximum density criteria, and permitted uses that are different from the existing R-E/SS-107 zone. In general, the development review criteria and maximum density criteria in the RM District are more restrictive than in the SS-107 District, while the list of permitted uses is more permissive in the RM District than in the R-E District. | |||||||||
Overall, the rezoning and amendment guide the future growth of the subject area of the County in a desirable manner, will not be detrimental to the character, social and economic stability of the subject area and its environ, and will help guide the location of future development on the subject parcel and further the goal of promoting clustered development. In combination with other actions recommended herein, the Rezoning and General Plan Amendment will further the goal of preserving open space. | |||||||||
c. |
The RM District Text Amendment | ||||||||
As noted above, a significant portion of County lands, over 1,600 parcels Countywide, are currently designated RM. The intent of this zoning designation is to prioritize the preservation of open space and natural resources, while allowing a moderate amount of specified types of development. Allowed uses with an RM permit include residential uses; churches; schools; agricultural, resource extraction, recreational, scientific, and related uses; and a limited number of other commercial uses. | |||||||||
The amendment will add the following language to the RM District zoning regulations: | |||||||||
“SECTION 6317A. CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE EASEMENT. Require, after any land divisions, that the applicant grant to the County (and the County to accept) a conservation easement containing a covenant, running with the land in perpetuity, which limits the use of the land covered by the easement to uses consistent with open space (as defined in the California Open Space Lands Act of 1972 on January 1, 1980). The boundaries of the conservation easement may be modified by the parties for purposes of health, safety and maintenance of the uses allowed at the time of the subdivision provided that the original intent and purposes of the conservation easement are maintained. | |||||||||
The land subject to a conservation easement is that land which is not designated for development under a Master Land Division Plan under the requirements of Chapter 23 (Development Review Procedure). The boundaries between the land designated as a conservation easement and the land available for development shall be chosen, at a minimum, so that improvements allowable at the time of subdivision may be made in areas outside the conservation easement, provided however, that no increase in density credits is implied or created and any development planned under this provision will be subject to the State laws and County regulations in place at the time the development is sought to be implemented. For purposes of Section 6317A, a “land division” does not include: | |||||||||
A. |
A lot line adjustment unless the proposed lot line adjustment will increase the intensity of use or density credits of the master parcel. | ||||||||
B. |
A land division resulting from a transfer of land to a public agency or non-profit organization for public recreation or open space purposes provided that the land acquired by the government agency or non-profit organization is dedicated as public open space or parkland in perpetuity.” | ||||||||
(1) |
Conformance with the General Plan | ||||||||
The proposed text amendment to the RM zoning regulations does not modify the uses currently allowed by the RM zoning designation, and retains the current allowed development densities, while strengthening the preservation of open space and natural resources that is a primary intent of the RM designation. The addition of a conservation easement requirement for any subdivided lands ensures that open space and natural resource areas included in RM-zoned areas will be subject to permanent protection, and helps ensure that some currently undeveloped RM-zoned areas will remain in an undeveloped state. This provision would further General Plan Goals and Policies that prioritize the preservation of open space, while allowing some degree of development on land designated for open space and natural resource conservation. The requirement would not preclude development of RM-zoned properties, but would help determine the manner and extent to which such properties could be developed. | |||||||||
The text amendment would bring the RM zoning district regulations into conformity with the more recently adopted RM-CZ zoning designation applicable in the Coastal Zone, which includes a conservation easement dedication upon any land division. | |||||||||
The amendment would promote and conform to the following specific General Plan goals and policies: | |||||||||
1.22, Regulate Development to Protect Vegetative, Water, Fish and Wildlife Resources, and Policy 1.23, Regulate Location, Density and Design of Development to Protect Vegetative, Water, Fish and Wildlife Resources, call for conservation and protection of natural resources. The requirement for permanent dedication of open space upon subdivision of RM-zoned lands directly furthers this policy. | |||||||||
1.27, Regulate Development to Protect Sensitive Habitats. By requiring the dedication of open space as part of any division of RM-zoned land, the County will have increased ability to promote the protection of sensitive habitats that might otherwise be impacted by development. | |||||||||
7.4, Natural Resources, calls for the designation of land uses in a manner that enhances the protection and management of natural resources. The 9,000 sq. ft. portion proposed for Medium-Low Density Residential designation is directly adjacent to other areas already designated Medium-Low Density Residential. Designation of this portion of the parcel for residential uses indicates the preferred location of development on this site, incentivizes contiguous development with already development areas, and helps to maintain the remainder of the site as open space. | |||||||||
9.40, Maintenance of the Open Space Character of Land Designated as General Open Space, prioritizes maintenance of open space. To the extent that RM-zoned properties are designated as General Open Space, the amendment will promote this policy. | |||||||||
9.41, Criteria for the Division of Land Designated General Open Space, calls for the retention of large areas of open space without development, to protect resources and maintain the scenic quality and open space character of the rural area. In addition, 9.41 calls for clustering development in smaller parcels in order to maintain larger parcels as open space. The amendment will help achieve this policy. | |||||||||
Overall, the amendment will not be detrimental to the character, social and economic stability of the RM-zoned areas throughout the County, immediately adjacent areas, or the County as a whole. The amendment will further the goals of preserving open space and natural resources throughout the County. | |||||||||
The text amendment would not apply to RM lands that are not subdividable due to slope, size, other development restrictions, or other reasons. | |||||||||
B. |
ALTERNATIVES | ||||||||
1. |
The Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning | ||||||||
The table below provides a summary of the analysis for six identified alternatives, also illustrated as Attachment I. A more detailed description follows. | |||||||||
Alternative |
Requires Cluster Development |
Requires Grant of Conservation Easement |
Limits Size of New Houses | |
1. |
Retain Existing R-E/SS-107 Zoning |
|||
2. |
Rezone 7,500 sq. ft. to R-1/S-8 and balance to RM |
X |
X |
X |
3. |
Rezone 9,000 sq. ft. to R-1/S-81 and balance to RM |
X |
X |
X |
4. |
Rezone 1 acre to R-E/S-108 and balance to RM |
X |
X |
|
5. |
Rezone 2 acres to R-E/S-108 and balance to RM |
X |
||
6. |
Rezone to RM and transfer Density Credit to another location on the site |
X |
X |
|
a. |
Retain Existing R-E/SS-107 Zoning | |||
This alternative would retain the existing zoning of the property. This zoning specifies a minimum 5-acre parcel size; therefore, depending on slope and density restrictions, two residential units could potentially be developed on it. The zoning does not indicate a location of potential development on the 11.78-acre portion of APN 041-101-290. This alternative: | ||||
• |
Would not require that a conservation easement be granted to the County limiting the use of the remaining lands to uses consistent with open space, since that would be a requirement only for RM-zoned property. | |||
• |
Would not limit the size of proposed new houses because the site size is not limited. | |||
b. |
Rezone a 7,500 sq. ft. Portion 11.78-acre Portion of APN 041-101-290 to R-1/S-8 and the Balance to RM District | |||
This alternative would rezone a 7,500 sq. ft. portion of the parcel to R-1/S-8 and the balance to RM District. This would allow one single-family residence on the 7,500 sq. ft. portion. A density analysis of the proposed RM District portion indicates a density credit of 0.614 or one dwelling unit (rounded up) for the balance of the parcel. This alternative: | ||||
• |
Would indicate the location for development by placing the zoning district boundary at the end of Cobblehill Place. | |||
• |
Would require clustering of development pursuant to General Plan Policy 9.41b(1) “cluster proposed development in smaller parcels in order to maintain large parcels.” | |||
• |
Would require that a conservation easement be granted to the County, limiting the use of the remaining lands to uses consistent with open space, since the remaining portion of the property would be zoned RM District. | |||
• |
Would limit the size of proposed new houses, because the site size is limited. | |||
c. |
Rezone a 9,000 sq. ft. portion to R-1/S-81 and the balance to RM District | |||
This is the Proposed Project. This alternative would rezone a 9,000 sq. ft. portion of the parcel to R-1/S-81 (a new combining district with a minimum lot size of 9,000 sq. ft.) and the balance to RM District. This would allow one single-family residence on the 9,000 sq. ft. portion. A density analysis of the proposed RM District portion indicates a density credit of 0.613 or one dwelling unit (rounded up) for the balance of the parcel. This alternative: | ||||
• |
Would indicate the location for development by placing the zoning district boundary at the end of Cobblehill Place. | |||
• |
Would require clustering of development pursuant to General Plan Policy 9.41b(1) “cluster proposed development in smaller parcels in order to maintain large parcels.” | |||
• |
Would require that a conservation easement be granted to the County, limiting the use of the remaining lands to uses consistent with open space, since the remaining portion of the property would be zoned RM District. | |||
• |
Would limit the size of proposed new houses because the site size is limited. | |||
d. |
Rezone a 1-acre portion to R-E/S-108 and the balance to RM District | |||
This alternative would rezone a 1-acre portion of the parcel to R-E/S-108 (a new combining district with a minimum lot size of 1 acre) and the balance to RM District. This would allow one single-family residence on the 1-acre portion. A density analysis of the proposed RM District portion indicates a density credit of 0.576 or one dwelling unit (rounded up) for the balance of the parcel. This alternative: | ||||
• |
Would indicate the location for development by placing the zoning district boundary at the end of Cobblehill Place. | |||
• |
Would require clustering of development pursuant to General Plan Policy 9.41b(1) “cluster proposed development in smaller parcels in order to maintain large parcels.” | |||
• |
Would require that a conservation easement be granted to the County, limiting the use of the remaining lands to uses consistent with open space since the remaining portion of the property would be zoned RM District. | |||
e. |
Rezone a 2-acre portion to R-E/S-108 and the balance to RM District | |||
This alternative would rezone a 2-acre portion of the parcel to R-E/S-108 (a new combining district with a minimum lot size of 2 acres) and the balance to RM District. This would allow one single-family residence on the 2-acre portion. A density analysis of the proposed RM District portion indicates a density credit of 0.517 or one dwelling unit (rounded up) for the balance of the parcel. This alternative: | ||||
• |
Would indicate the location for development by placing the zoning district boundary at the end of Cobblehill Place. | |||
• |
Would require clustering of development pursuant to General Plan Policy 9.41b(1) “cluster proposed development in smaller parcels in order to maintain large parcels.” However, clustering might be more difficult to achieve because of the large 2-acre parcel size. | |||
• |
Would require that a conservation easement be granted to the County, limiting the use of the remaining lands to uses consistent with open space, since the remaining portion of the property would be zoned RM District. | |||
f. |
Rezone the Entire Portion of APN 041-101-290 to RM District and Transfer Density Credit to another Portion of the Property | |||
This alternative would rezone the entire 11.78-acre portion to the RM District. A density analysis of the 11.78-acre portion if it were zoned RM in its entirety indicates a density credit of 0.621 or one dwelling unit (rounded up) for the whole portion. This alternative: | ||||
• |
Would not indicate the location for development. | |||
• |
Would require clustering of development pursuant to General Plan Policy 9.41b(1) “cluster proposed development in smaller parcels in order to maintain large parcels.” | |||
• |
Would require that a conservation easement be granted to the County upon any further land divisions, limiting the use of the remaining lands to uses consistent with open space, since the remaining portion of the property would be zoned RM District. | |||
• |
Would not maintain the current development potential of the 11.78-acre portion, because the dwelling unit yield would be only one unit. | |||
• |
Would not limit the size of proposed new houses. | |||
2. |
The Proposed RM District Text Amendment | |||
a. |
Retain the RM District Provisions as Currently Required | |||
This alternative would retain the RM District provisions without modification. Conservation easements would not be required when land divisions are approved. Retention, as open space, of RM lands subdivided for development would be more difficult. However, the current RM District zoning limitations on density credits would remain. This alternative would allow possible rezoning requests in the future on all or a portion of RM-zoned parcels. | ||||
C. |
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW | |||
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the Proposed 11.78-acre GPA and Rezoning Project (Attachment N). | ||||
The RM District text amendment has been determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines). | ||||
D. |
PUBLIC COMMENT | |||
Prior to the Planning Commission Hearing on June 27, 2007, Planning Department staff received a number of written and verbal comments from the public on the project, on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, and on the Staff Report. In addition, approximately 24 members of the public spoke at the Planning Commission hearing. Additional public comment was also received after the hearing. After the item was continued, approximately 25 more members of the public spoke at the July 11, 2007 Planning Commission Hearing. The comments and questions received prior to, during, and after the Planning Commission Hearings, and staff response to the comments, are presented below as Attachments P-S. All written comments (email and letters) are included as attachments to this report. | ||||
E. |
REVIEWING AGENCIES/OTHER REVIEWING ORGANIZATIONS | |||
San Mateo County Public Works, including Crystal Springs County Sanitation District | ||||
San Mateo County Environmental Health | ||||
San Mateo County Counsel | ||||
LAFCo | ||||
California Water Service | ||||
Committee for Green Foothills | ||||
FISCAL IMPACT | ||||
The proposed project has no direct fiscal impact on the County. The amendment to the RM Zoning text to require a conservation easement upon land division might potentially have the indirect impact of modifying the property taxes levied on subdivided properties. However, since the majority of uses currently allowed on RM-zoned properties would continue to be allowed on lands subject to conservation easement, such impacts would be moderate or nonexistent. The proposed Rezoning, Zoning Text and General Plan amendments for parcels in the San Mateo Highlands do not affect the allowed intensity of uses on the areas proposed for modification, and are therefore unlikely to have any impact on tax revenues. | ||||
ATTACHMENTS | ||||
A. |
Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval | |||
B. |
Project Location Map | |||
C. |
Map of 11.78-Acre Parcel within 99-acre Parcel | |||
D. |
Map of Existing General Plan Designations | |||
E. |
Proposed General Plan Map Amendment – Mid-Bayside Area | |||
F. |
Existing Zoning Map | |||
G. |
Proposed Rezoning Map | |||
H. |
Map of RM-zoned Properties countywide | |||
I. |
Alternatives | |||
J. |
Resolution: General Plan Land Use Map Amendment | |||
K. |
Ordinance: Rezoning Amendment | |||
L. |
Ordinance: S-81 Combining District | |||
M. |
Ordinance: RM District Text Amendment | |||
N. |
Inter-departmental Correspondence from Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services to the Board of Supervisors, Regarding Highland Estates Residential Development Application, November 30, 2004 | |||
O. |
Initial Study, Negative Declaration | |||
P. |
Comments Received in Support of the Proposal (arranged alphabetically) | |||
Q. |
Comments Received in Opposition to the Proposal (arranged alphabetically) | |||
R. |
Other Comments Received | |||
S. |
Summary of Public Comment and Staff Response | |||
MAT:WSG/kcd - MATR0781_WKU.DOC
Attachment A | |||||
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO | |||||
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT | |||||
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL | |||||
Permit File Number: PLN 2007-00203 |
Board Meeting Date: September 11, 2007 | ||||
Prepared By: |
Matt Seubert, Senior Planner |
For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors | |||
William Gibson, Project Planner |
|||||
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS | |||||
Regarding the Environmental Review, find: | |||||
1. |
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. An Initial Study was completed and a Negative Declaration issued in conformance with CEQA guidelines. The public review period for this document was June 5, 2007 through June 26, 2007. | ||||
2. |
That, on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received thereto, no substantial evidence exists that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The prepared Initial Study and Negative Declaration reveal that the project may only result in impacts considered “not significant.” | ||||
3. |
That the mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration 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. | ||||
4. |
That the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the San Mateo County Planning Department and does not represent the interests of the applicant or any other interested parties. | ||||
5. |
That the proposed text amendment to the Resource Management (RM) Zoning Regulations is categorically exempt under CEQA Guideline 15308 and that staff is directed to file a Notice of Exemption. | ||||
Regarding the General Plan Amendment: | |||||
5. |
Adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit J to this report, amending the San Mateo County General Plan by changing the land use designation on the General Plan Mid-Bayside Map specifically for a 9,000 sq. ft. portion of land in the San Mateo Highlands area, identified as a portion of APN 041-101-290, from General Open Space to Medium-Low Density Residential. | ||||
Regarding the zoning text amendment creating a new S-81 combining district: | |||||
6. |
Add, by the ordinance attached as Exhibit L to this report, a new combining district S-81 (San Mateo Highlands) to the County Zoning Code establishing a minimum lot size of 9,000 sq. ft. and zoning development standards described in this report. | ||||
Regarding the Rezoning Map Amendment: | |||||
7. |
Rezone, by the ordinance attached as Exhibit K to this report, an 11.78-acre portion of APN 041-101-290 from the R-E/SS-107 (One-Family Residential/Zoning Development Standards SS-107) to two zoning districts: an approximate 9,000 sq. ft. portion to R-1/S-81 (One-Family Residential/Zoning Development Standards S-81) District and the remaining 11.57-acre portion to the RM (Resource Management) District. | ||||
Regarding the zoning text amendment to the RM zoning district: | |||||
8. |
Amend, by the ordinance attached as Exhibit M to this report, the RM District regulations by adding a provision requiring, after any land division(s), that a permanent conservation easement be granted to the County that limits the use of the lands to uses consistent with open space (as defined in the California Open Space Lands Act of 1972 on January 1, 1980). | ||||
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL | |||||
Planning Department | |||||
1. |
Require any development on the project site comply with the following mitigation measures at time of application to the Planning and Building Department: | ||||
a. |
Require geotechnical observations and, if necessary, additional geotechnical investigations during grading operations and construction activity. | ||||
b. |
Require that modern seismic design criteria be used in construction for resistance to lateral forces. | ||||
c. |
Require appropriate grading and design. | ||||
d. |
Require fill to be properly placed and compacted. | ||||
e. |
Require all roads, foundations and utilities be designed to react acceptably under seismic conditions. | ||||
f. |
Require that final design of all project components be in compliance with the recommendations of a detailed design-level geotechnical investigation and recommendations. | ||||
1 This numbering pattern for S combining districts is consistent with past County practice of naming sub-categories of combining districts with similar, but somewhat different standards. For example, the S-9 combining district has sub-categories of S-90, S-91, S-92 etc.
2 This numbering pattern for S combining districts is consistent with past County practice of naming sub-categories of combining districts with similar, but somewhat different standards. For example, the S-9 combining district has sub-categories of S-90, S-91, S-92 etc.
