COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Planning and Building Department

DATE:

April 12, 2010

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 27, 2010

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

500 Feet

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Jim Eggemeyer, Interim Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:

Consideration of: (1) Certification of the Re-Circulated Draft EIR and the Final EIR, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Highlands Estates Subdivision; (2) Adoption of the ordinance to amend the County’s non-coastal Resource Management (RM) District Regulations, pursuant to Section 6550 of the County Zoning Regulations; (3) Adoption of the ordinance to rezone two portions of the project site, pursuant to Section 6550 of the County Zoning Regulations; and (4) Approval of the proposed Lot Line Adjustment (pursuant to Section 7124 of the County Subdivision Regulations), Major Subdivision (pursuant to the Section 7010 of the County Subdivision Regulations), RM Permit (pursuant to Sections 6313 and 6318 of the County Zoning Regulations), and Grading Permit (pursuant to Section 8600 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code).

County File Number:

PLN 2006-00357 (Ticonderoga Partners, LLC/Chamberlain Group)

STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Consider the following actions:

1.

Certify the Re-Circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and the Final EIR (FEIR), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, subject to the required findings listed in Attachments A and B.

2.

Adopt the ordinance included as Attachment X of this report to amend the County’s non-coastal Resource Management (RM) Zoning District Regulations by adding a provision allowing a reduction in front yard setbacks to a minimum of 20 feet and side yard setbacks to a minimum of 10 feet for projects that meet specified criteria, subject to the required findings listed in Attachment A.

3.

Adopt the ordinance included as Attachment V of this report to rezone an approximately 27,000 sq. ft. portion of APN 041-101-290, corresponding to the boundaries of Lots 9 and 10 of the Vesting Tentative Map from RM to R-1/S-81 zoning designation, subject to the required findings and conditions of approval listed in Attachment B.

4.

Approve of a Lot Line Adjustment between APN 041-072-030 and APN 041-101-290 which would retain the number of existing legal parcels but which would result in a new parcel configuration (Lot 10), subject to the required findings and conditions of approval listed in Attachment B.

5.

Adopt the ordinance included as Attachment W of this report to rezone a 2,178 sq. ft. area (formerly APN 041-072-030) from R-1/S-8 to RM, subject to the required findings and conditions of approval listed in Attachment B.

6.

Approve a Major Subdivision of APN 041-101-290 to create ten new residential parcels (Lots 1 through 9 and Lot 11), with appropriate development restrictions on the remainder parcel (as allowed by Section 6318 of the Zoning Regulations), subject to the required findings and conditions of approval listed in Attachment B.

7.

Approve a Resource Management Permit to subdivide and develop nine lots located in the RM-zoned portion of the property (Lots 1 through 8 and Lot 11), including granting two bonus density credits and the approval of a reduction in the minimum front and side yard setback requirements per the proposed Zoning Text Amendment, subject to the required findings and conditions of approval listed in Attachment B.

8.

Approve a Grading Permit to perform approximately 6,700 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,400 cubic yards of fill for the development of eleven residential lots, subject to the required findings and conditions of approval listed in Attachment B.

BACKGROUND

Project Summary: The proposed project includes all actions associated with the development of two contiguous parcels, totaling 96.97 acres (approx. net) (gross: 99 acres), located in the unincorporated San Mateo Highlands area of San Mateo County. The project site contains two island parcels owned by the California Water Service. These two parcels total approximately 2.08 acres and are not part of this project. The larger of the two subject parcels (APN 041-101-290) is approximately 96.92 net acres in size and carries two zoning designations: Single-Family Residential (R-1/S-81) for a 9,000 sq. ft. portion at the base of Cobblehill Place, and Resource Management (RM) for the remaining area of the parcel. The smaller of the two parcels (APN 041-072-030) is 2,178 sq. ft. in size and carries a zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (R-1/S-8). Existing parcel boundaries and zoning districts are illustrated in Attachment I of this report.

The applicant, Chamberlain Group, proposes a series of actions including a Rezoning, a Lot Line Adjustment, and a Major Subdivision. As proposed, parcel sizes range from approximately 9,100 sq. ft. to approximately 18,000 sq. ft., with the exception of Lot 8 (20,904 sq. ft.) and Lot 11 (28,600 sq. ft.). The proposed preliminary designs for the homes are multi-level structures, ranging in size from approximately 2,800 sq. ft. to approximately 3,900 sq. ft. The remaining area of the project site will be restricted to open space uses in compliance with the requirements of Sections 6317A (Conservation Easement for Subdivisions) and 6318 (Development Bonuses) of the RM Zoning District Regulations, with potential development as a passive use park to serve the neighboring community. The proposed Rezoning, Lot Line Adjustment and Major Subdivision are illustrated in Attachment J of this report.

All actions necessary for project implementation are proposed by the applicant, except for the Zoning Text Amendment, which is proposed by the County. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would modify the County’s non-coastal Resource Management (RM) Zoning District Regulations in order to allow for reduced setbacks for residential projects in unincorporated urban areas that preserve open space.

Report Prepared By: Camille Leung, Planner III, Telephone 650/363-1826

Applicant: Chamberlain Group

Owner: Ticonderoga Partners, LLC

Location (Highland Estates): Two contiguous parcels of property (APN 041-101-290 and APN 041-072-030), consisting of approximately 99 acres (gross), located in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County known as the San Mateo Highlands. See “Setting” below for additional information.

Location (Zoning Text Amendment): There are currently 93 existing RM District parcels within urban, unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. As shown in Attachments D and E, these parcels are concentrated in six primary areas within San Mateo County: the San Mateo Highlands neighborhood, San Bruno Mountain, areas owned by Stanford University, the Los Trancos Woods Area, Edgewood Park Area and in the San Bruno County Jail Area.

APNs: 041-101-290 and 041-072-030 (Highlands Estates)

Size: APN 041-101-290 is approximately 96.97 acres (net). APN 041-072-030 is approximately 2,178 sq. ft. in size.

Existing Zoning: As shown in Attachment I, APN 041-101-290 currently carries two zoning designations: one of Single-Family Residential (R-1/S-81) for a 9,000 sq. ft. portion at the base of Cobblehill Place, and the other of Resource Management (RM) for the remaining area of the parcel. APN 041-072-030 carries a zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (R-1/S-8).

General Plan Designation: All of APN 041-101-290 is designated General Open Space, except for a 9,000 sq. ft. portion of APN 041-101-290 (near Cobblehill Place) zoned R-1/S-81 that is designated for Medium Low Density Residential (2.4 – 6.0 dwelling units/acre). APN 041-072-030 is also designated for Medium Low Density Residential use.

Sphere-of-Influence: City of San Mateo

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Water Supply: Domestic water service would be provided to the project site by California Water Service Company (Cal Water). Upon approval of the project, the applicant would be responsible for securing permits with Cal Water to extend the water lines from their existing termini in Ticonderoga Drive and Bunker Hill Drive to the proposed parcels.

Sewage Disposal: Sanitary sewer service would be provided to the project site by the Crystal Springs County Sanitation District (District). The homes would connect to existing sewer lines that run along Ticonderoga Drive and Bunker Hill Drive. Currently, the sewer collection system is over capacity during the wet seasons, with the majority of sewer system overflows occurring in the Town of Hillsborough and the City of San Mateo collection systems. Per Condition 4.y (Mitigation Measure UTIL-1), the applicant would be required to mitigate the project-generated increase in sewer flow such that there is a “zero net increase” in flow during wet weather events, by reducing the amount of existing Inflow and Infiltration (INI) into the District sewer system. Further discussion is provided in Section 4.4.2.6 of the Re-Circulated DEIR.

Flood Zone: Zone C (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel No. 060311-0140B; effective date July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: A Re-Circulated DEIR was issued with a 57-day public review period from September 14, 2009 to November 9, 2009. A FEIR was issued with a 10-day public review period from January 4, 2010 to January 14, 2010. Please see Section II.H of this report for further discussion.

Setting: The property is undeveloped. The project site is bordered by Bunker Hill Drive to the north and northeast; Polhemus Road to the southeast; Ticonderoga Drive and Cobblehill Place to the south; and Ticonderoga Drive, Lexington Avenue, and Yorktown Road to the west. The project site is predominately surrounded by single-family residential uses. Other surrounding land uses in the project area include the Crystal Springs United Methodist Church and the Crystal Springs Shopping Center east of the site; and the Hillsborough West Apartments southeast of the site and the Highlands Recreation Center west of the site. The Highlands Elementary School is approximately 200 feet northwest of the project site. Two parcels, owned by the California Water Service Company, are located off Yorktown Road and are surrounded by the project parcel. These two parcels are not part of this project. The slope on the project site ranges from 0 percent to 50 percent in some areas (the average overall slope is 40 percent). Numerous sandstone rock outcrops are visible on the site, especially along the upper slopes and ridges. The site is predominately characterized by coast live oak, woodland, coastal scrub, riparian forest and valley needlegrass grassland. The soil types that exist on the site include clayey soil, greywacke sandstone, sheared bedrock and bedrock of the Franciscan formation. Soils associated with previous landslides are also present on the portion of the project site proposed for development along Ticonderoga Drive.

Livable Communities 2025 Shared Vision: Project approval will result in the creation of eleven new parcels for single-family residential use to be located adjacent to existing residential development and accessible from existing roadways.

Chronology:

Date

Action

Prior to 1958

The entire property and adjacent 3-acre site on Polhemus Road, ultimately developed as Hillsborough West Apartments (800 Polhemus Road, now in the City of San Mateo), 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.

April 16, 1963

The San Mateo County Planning Commission approves a 4-lot subdivision resulting in the creation of APN 041-101-290 and three parcels located on the Hillsborough West Apartments site.

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.

November 15, 2005

Certificate of Compliance (Type A) for APN 041-072-030 is recorded, included as Attachment Y, making the parcel legal (PLN 2005-00350).

September 2007

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approved a County-initiated rezoning of the 11.78-acre portion of the parcel from an R-E/SS-107 zoning to an R-1/S-81 zoning over a 9,000 sq. ft. portion and an RM zoning over an 11.57-acre portion. The County also amended, by ordinance, the RM District Regulations to add 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.

December 19, 2008

Public release date of DEIR. Public comment period end date is February 17, 2009.

January 14, 2009

Planning Commission informational public hearing of the DEIR. The Planning Commission: (1) added an additional informational Planning Commission public hearing on February 11, 2009, to be held at the Highlands Elementary School; and (2) extended the EIR public comment period by two weeks to February 17, 2009.

February 11, 2009

Planning Commission informational public hearing of DEIR held at the Highlands Elementary School. At the hearing, the Community Development Director announced that the DEIR will be revised and re-circulated to include the full geotechnical scope authorized by the Board of Supervisors on September 30, 2008.

March 16, 2009

Project meeting between Treadwell and Rollo, Inc., Cotton Shires and Associates, Impact Sciences (County’s EIR Consultant), San Mateo County staff, including the County Geologist and the project geotechnical consultant. During that meeting, all parties came to a consensus to further evaluate the landslides impacting the Ticonderoga lots by performing additional subsurface exploration in the area of the landslide and by conducting additional geologic mapping and evaluations for all of the four building sites, utilizing updated topographic surveys.

May 5, 2009

The Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution authorizing a third amendment to the agreement between the County of San Mateo and Impact Sciences for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project, in order to analyze additional technical issues, account for a change in the project description to include a proposed text amendment to the Resource Management (RM) District Regulations, perform additional geotechnical investigation and re-circulate the DEIR.

September 14, 2009

Public release date of the Re-Circulated DEIR, which addresses the geotechnical investigation and additional analysis, as appropriate in order to respond to the comments received on the December 2008 DEIR. The DEIR shows changes to the December 2008 DEIR in redline/strikeout format. Public comment period end date is October 28, 2009.

October 28, 2009

Planning Commission informational public hearing on the Re-Circulated DEIR.

November 9, 2009

End of Re-Circulated DEIR public comment period (extended from October 28, 2009).

January 4, 2010

Public release date of the FEIR, which includes all comments on the Re-Circulated DEIR received during the public review period and response to comments.

January 13, 2010

At the Planning Commission public hearing of the DEIR, FEIR, and proposed project, the Commission continued the item to January 27, 2010 to allow more time for community groups to continue to work with the County and the applicant to address concerns voiced by the public, including, but not limited to, land disturbance within the open space parcel, the applicant’s request for additional grading on Lots 1 through 4, the large size of Lot 8, finalization of the proposed conservation easement. The Commission also expressed concern regarding the proposed design of the homes, the need for further screening along the front of the proposed Ticonderoga homes, and incorporation of green building features.

Subsequently, staff requested a continuance to February 10, 2010, in order to fully address the above items.

February 10, 2010

At the Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors certify the FEIR, adopt the ordinances amending the Resource Management (RM) Zoning District Regulations, and rezoning two portions of the project site, and approve the proposed project, subject to the revised findings and conditions of approval (discussed in further detail in Section I of this report).

April 2, 2010

Project meeting between Alan and Catherine Palter of the Baywood Plaza Community Association, Lennie Roberts of the Committee for Green Foothills, Cary Weist of the Highlands Community Association, and San Mateo County staff to discuss community concerns regarding details of the conservation easement and conditions of approval (discussed in further detail in Section I.C of this report).

April 27, 2010

Board of Supervisors public hearing of the Draft EIR, FEIR, and proposed project.

DISCUSSION

I.

KEY ACTIONS

A.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

On February 10, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors certify the FEIR, adopt the ordinances amending the Resource Management (RM) Zoning District Regulations, and rezoning two portions of the project site, and approve the proposed project, subject to the revised findings and conditions of approval in Attachments A and B (decision letter included as Attachment H).

Based on information provided by staff and the testimony presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to make various revisions to the findings and conditions of approval for the proposed project, including those summarized below¹:

•

Revised Environmental Review Finding 1 for the County-Proposed RM Zoning District Text Amendment and the Proposed Project: The Planning Commission found that the Re-Circulated DEIR and FEIR are complete, correct and adequate, and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable State and County Guidelines, adding a clarification regarding “Alternative 3: Alternate Project Scheme” of the Re-Circulated DEIR (Page 6.0-10). The Commission added that implementation of the alternative would reduce the number of homes located within an area where two landslides have been identified and could potentially minimize aesthetics impacts to off-site views of the homes along Ticonderoga Drive.

•

Revised Condition 4.b for the Proposed Project: Initially, this condition required specific placement of 17 of the 22 trees in order to soften and screen views of the new homes on Ticonderoga Drive, Cowpens Way and Cobblehill Place, with the planting of five of the remaining required trees in an unspecified on-site location. The Planning Commission specified that the five trees should be planted in the right side yard of Lot 8 in order to provide screening of this residence and other residences on Ticonderoga Drive as viewed from Lakewood Circle. The Planning Commission also required future property owners to maintain all required trees (or their replacements) in perpetuity.

•

Revised Condition 6.a for the Proposed Project: Initially, this condition regarding project color, materials and lighting applied only to residences on parcels in the RM Zoning District (Lots 1 through 8 and Lot 11). The Planning Commission made this condition applicable to all of the proposed residences (Lots 1 through 11).

•

Revised Condition 6.b for the Proposed Project: This condition requires the applicant to construct the homes on Lots 9 through 11 such that the rear facades have details to reduce the massing of the structures. The Planning Commission added that the applicant shall visually “break up” the vertical rear facade by utilizing architectural articulation, color variation, and brick or stone treatment for retaining walls supporting the residences.

•

New Condition 50 for the Proposed Project: Based on concerns expressed by the public that the location of the bio-retention planter on Lot 8 may impede the ability of the Crystal Springs County Sanitation District (CSCSD) to access existing sewer improvements on the open space parcel, the Planning Commission added a condition requiring the access easement on Lot 8 meet CSCSD’s access requirements.

B.

MINOR REVISIONS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MADE BY PLANNING STAFF

Since the hearing, Planning staff has made further minor revisions to the project conditions of approval. Staff has added Condition 33 to require project compliance with Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) requirements. Staff has added Condition 34 in order to ensure perpetual compliance with the development standards and other criteria that constitute the basis of the setback reduction for the RM-zoned lots. These minor revisions provide clarity and additional applicant accountability for project requirements imposed by the Planning Commission. Revisions to the project conditions of approval are shown in track changes in Attachment B. These revisions are minor in nature and are consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval for the project.

C.

REVISIONS TO THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BASED ON DISCUSSION AMONG COUNTY STAFF, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

On April 2, 2010, Planning staff and County Counsel met with Alan and Catherine Palter of the Baywood Plaza Community Association, Lennie Roberts of the Committee for Green Foothills, and Cary Weist of the Highlands Community Association, to discuss community concerns regarding details of the conservation easement and conditions of approval. Based on this discussion, staff has made the following additional changes to project documents:

•

Revised Draft Conservation Easement: County Counsel has revised the Draft Conservation Easement to clarify the following: (1) the types of improvements that could occur on a flat section of the open space parcel on Lexington Avenue (adjacent to the Highlands Recreation District offices), (2) that improvements determined to be necessary under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must also comply with the conservation purpose of the easement, and (3) the level of review necessary for amendments to the conservation easement. County Counsel also made other minor edits to this document. These revisions to the Draft Conservation Easement do not require review by the Planning Commission, as the easement is only subject to review by the Board of Supervisors.

•

Revised Condition 4.u for the Proposed Project: Neighborhood association representatives expressed concern that while the San Mateo County Fire Protection Ordinance requires a firebreak not less than 30 feet and up to a distance of 100 feet around each improvement, Condition 4.u requires a firebreak of “not less than 100 feet.” The neighborhood association representatives are concerned that this would result in more vegetation removal than is necessary under the County Fire Protection Ordinance and may result in reduced screening for the eleven proposed homes. Staff has changed the language of the fuel break requirement from “not less than 100 feet” to “up to 100 feet.” County Fire Department staff supports the revised language. In addition, language has been added to clarify that the fuel break requirement does not authorize the removal of “major vegetation” requiring an RM Permit. Specifically, “major removal” would be defined as the removal of trees² or other vegetation that provide screening of the eleven residences, such that the residences are made significantly more visible from public viewing location(s). The revision is minor in nature and complies with the San Mateo County Fire Protection Ordinance.

•

Revised Conditions 8 and 9 for the Proposed Project: These conditions identify “no-build” areas on Lots 8 and 11, as shown on the Final Map. Neighborhood association representatives expressed concern that the large size of these lots may result, in the future, in an expansion of the homes to a size that is out of scale with other homes in the area. To further restrict the homes sizes on these parcels, staff has added language to require measurement of setbacks from (not to include) no-build areas and to exclude the no-build areas from lot coverage calculations. The language has also been added to the new Condition No. 34 added by staff with regard to the application of development standards to the project parcels, as contained in the RM Zoning Text Amendment. The revision is consistent with the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission regarding lot size and their recommendation of approval for the project.

As stated above, the revisions to the project conditions of approval are minor in nature and consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval for the project. The revised conditions of approval for the project described in Sections I.B and C of this report are shown in track changes in Attachment B.

II.

DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES

A.

PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND MAJOR SUBDIVISION

Lot Line Adjustment (Recommended Action No. 4)

The Subdivision Regulations define a Lot Line Adjustment as a shift, rotation, or movement of an existing line between two or more adjacent parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent parcel and where the adjustment does not result in a greater number of parcels than originally existed.

As illustrated in Attachment J, the applicant proposes a Lot Line Adjustment between APN 041-072-030 (Parcel A), currently 2,178 sq. ft. in size, and APN 041-101-290 (Parcel B), currently 96.92 acres in size. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment would move the southern property line of Parcel A in a southeasterly direction to form the rear and side property lines of proposed Lot 10 at the base of Cobblehill Place. The Lot Line Adjustment transfers 96.51 acres from Parcel B to Parcel A, resulting in a much larger Parcel A (96.56 acres) and a much smaller Parcel B (17,995 sq. ft.). Parcel A would be subsequently subdivided into ten residential lots and one remainder parcel as described below. Parcel B would carry the designation of Lot 10 on the Vesting Tentative Map. The Lot Line Adjustment would result in the same number of parcels that currently exist (two).

Table 1
Proposed Lot Line Adjustment

Existing Parcel

Existing Lot Size

Amount Transferred

Proposed Lot Size

Parcel A
(APN 041-072-030)

2,178 sq. ft.
(0.05 acres)

+96.51 acres

96.56 acres

Parcel B
(APN 041-101-290)

96.92 acres

-96.51 acres

17,995 sq. ft.
(0.41 acres)

Total

96.97 acres

96.97 acres

Major Subdivision (Recommended Action No. 6)

Subsequently, the applicant proposes to subdivide the resulting 96.56-acre Parcel A to create eleven (11) new parcels, including ten new residential parcels (Lots 1 through 9 and Lot 11) and a remainder parcel, as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map (Attachment K). Including the newly configured existing legal parcel at the base of Cobblehill Place (Lot 10), this would result in a total of eleven residential parcels for all of the properties. Table 2 below describes the locations and sizes of the proposed parcels.

Table 2
Proposed Subdivision

Parcel No.

Street

Lot Size

1

Bunker Hill Drive

9,841 sq. ft.

2

Bunker Hill Drive

9,842 sq. ft.

3

Bunker Hill Drive

9,843 sq. ft.

4

Bunker Hill Drive

9,161 sq. ft.

5

Ticonderoga Drive

10,246 sq. ft.

6

Ticonderoga Drive

10,991 sq. ft.

7

Ticonderoga Drive

11,150 sq. ft.

8

Ticonderoga Drive

20,904 sq. ft.

9

Cobblehill Place

17,996 sq. ft.

10*

Cobblehill Place

17,995 sq. ft.

11

Cowpens Way

28,600 sq. ft.

Total Area of Residential Use

156,571 sq. ft.
(3.58 acres)

12

Open Space Use Only

93.43 acres

Total Area

96.97 acres

*Lot 10 results from the proposed lot line adjustment.

To meet the requirements of Sections 6317A (Conservation Open Space Easement) and 6318 (Development Bonuses) of the RM Zoning District Regulations, the applicant proposes a conservation easement (Attachment S) over the remainder parcel limiting uses on the parcel to uses consistent with the California Open Space Lands Act (Section 65560 of the California Government Code) (Attachment T). Discussion of the conservation easement is provided in Section II.C of this report, below.

1.

Compliance with the General Plan

The County General Plan designates APN 041-101-290 for General Open Space and APN 041-072-030 for Medium Low Density Residential (2.4 – 6.0 dwelling units/acre) uses. The General Open Space land use designation allows for single-family residential uses. As proposed, the land division has a density of 3.07 dwelling units/acre over the area of Lots 1 through 11. In conformance with Policies 8.14 (Land Use Compatibility) and 8.35 (Uses), the project is consistent with surrounding single-family residential land uses and existing open space uses to remain under this proposal. The proposed project also complies with Policy 8.29 (Infilling), which encourages the infilling of urban areas where infrastructure and services are available. Each of the eleven proposed residential lots would adjoin existing homes and be served by existing roads and utilities, including overhead electrical, television and cable lines, provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Pacific Bell, and TCI Cablevision of California, respectively. The project sites would also be served by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water), which would extend water lines from their existing termini in Ticonderoga Drive and Bunker Hill Drive to the proposed parcels. Sanitary sewer service to the parcels would be provided by the Crystal Springs County Sanitation District (District) using existing sewer lines that run along Ticonderoga Drive and Bunker Hill Drive.

2.

Compliance with Zoning Regulations

As shown in Attachment I, three zoning districts cover the project parcels. The larger of the two parcels (APN 047-101-290) is zoned Resource Management (RM) over a 96.71-acre portion and zoned R-1/S-81 over a 9,000 sq. ft. (or 0.21 acres) portion. The smaller parcel (APN 047-072-030) is zoned R-1/S-8.

Table 3
Existing Zoning By Parcel Number

Existing Zoning

Total Land Area
(Acres)

APN 047-101-290

96.92

RM

96.71

R-1/S-81

0.21

APN 047-072-030

0.05

R-1/S-8

0.05

Total Property Size

96.97

After the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Rezoning actions, the property will have only two zoning districts, R-1/S-81 over the areas corresponding to Lots 9 and 10 and RM zoning over the remaining area. The portion previously zoned R-1/S-8 (APN 047-072-030) will be rezoned to RM to be consistent with the RM zoning over a majority of the remainder parcel.

Required Minimum Parcel Size

The RM Zoning District sets forth a system for determining the maximum density of development, but does not require a minimum parcel size. The
R-1/S-81 Zoning District sets a minimum parcel size of 9,000 sq. ft. As shown in Table 2 (above), each of the eleven proposed residential parcels (Lots 1 through 11) exceed 9,000 sq. ft. in size. Parcel sizes range from approximately 9,100 sq. ft. to approximately 18,000 sq. ft., with the exception of Lot 8 (20,904 sq. ft.) and Lot 11 (28,600 sq. ft.). As shown in Attachments M and O, Lots 8 and 11 include sizable “no-build” areas that restrict the buildable area on these lots to be compatible with parcels in the area. Per Conditions 8 and 9, the “No-Build Zones” shall be shown on the Final Map for the subdivision and excluded from lot coverage calculations and setback measurements.

Required Minimum Setbacks

The required minimum setbacks (shown in gray) and the proposed setbacks for development on Lots 1 through 11 are listed in the following table.

Table 4
Proposed Setbacks Lots 1 through 11

Zoning District

Lot No.

Front Setback
(feet)

Right Side Setback (feet)

Left Side
Setback
(feet)

Rear Setback
(feet)

Total Floor Area

Existing RM

50

20

20

20

None

Proposed RM Text Amendment*

20

10

10

20

None

Lot 1

20^x

10^x

18^x

46

3,727

Lot 2

20^x

18^x

10^x

46

3,727

Lot 3

20^x

10^x

10^x

51

3,874

Lot 4

24^x

10^x

10^x

20

3,874

Lot 5

22^x

12^x

10^x

46

2,789

Lot 6

28^x

11^x

17^x

55

2,789

Lot 7

40^x

10^x

10^x

56

2,789

Lot 8

61

36¹

10^x

58

2,789

Lot 11

61

23¹

74

28

3,518

R-1/S-81

20

5

5

20

Lot 9

40

25

16

52

3,390

Lot 10

24

39

25

44

3,431

^*The setbacks are proposed and have not been adopted.

^x Proposed setbacks that do NOT meet current RM Regulations, but comply with the proposed RM Text Amendment.

¹ Lots 8 and 11 contain “No-Build Zones.” Per Conditions 8, 9, and 34, setbacks as shown in this table are measured from the edge of “no-build” areas. Right side setbacks would be 36 feet (Lot 8) and 23 feet (Lot 11) for these lots but would still comply with the minimum 20-foot side setback.

As shown in the above table, absent approval of the proposed RM Zoning Text Amendment, the homes for Lots 1 through 8 do not comply with the required minimum front and/or side setbacks of the RM Zoning District. Approval of the County-proposed RM Zoning Text Amendment (Attachment X) would, however, provide an exception to the minimum setback requirements for projects that preserve open space (described in detail in Section II.C of the this staff report), allowing a minimum 20-foot front setback and minimum 10-foot side setbacks. The project would comply with the setbacks of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. Furthermore, for Lots 8 and 11, setbacks would be measured from the limits of the buildable portion of the parcels and would exclude “no-build” areas, per Conditions 8, 9 and 34. Further discussion of project compliance with the RM Zoning District Regulations, including Development Review Criteria, is provided in Section II.C of this report, below.

3.

Compliance with Subdivision Regulations

The Planning Commission and Planning staff have reviewed the proposed Major Subdivision for consistency with the County Subdivision Regulations. The County’s Building Inspection Section, Environmental Health Division, Geotechnical Engineer, Department of Public Works and Cal-Fire have reviewed the project. As conditioned, the project is in compliance with their standards and the requirements of the County Subdivision Regulations. Conditions of project approval have been included in Attachment B of this report. The following contains a discussion of project compliance with eight specific findings required to approve this subdivision application:

a.

Find that, in accordance with Section 7013.3.b of the County Subdivision Regulations, this tentative map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the San Mateo County General Plan.

The Planning Commission and Planning staff have reviewed the tentative map and found it, as proposed and conditioned, to be consistent with the County General Plan as discussed in Section II.A.1 of this report, above.

b.

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

As discussed in the Re-Circulated DEIR, the project, as proposed and mitigated, would not result in any significant impacts to the environment. As described in Sections II.A.1 and II.A.2 of this report, the project complies with both the General Plan land use density designation and the Maximum Density of Development of the RM Zoning District. The project intends to minimize grading and comply with mitigation measures in the Re-Circulated DEIR and FEIR (as incorporated as conditions of approval) with the intention of minimizing geotechnical impacts to the project site and immediate vicinity.

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.

Implementation of mitigation measures in the Re-Circulated DEIR and Final EIR (as incorporated as conditions of approval) would reduce project environmental impacts to less than significant levels. Specifically, potential impacts to public health, including the potential release of asbestos in the serpentine bedrock during project grading, air quality and noise impacts from project construction, and risk of wildland fire after project occupancy are discussed with recommended mitigation measures, reducing the potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Potential impacts related to Geology and Soils, discussed in Section 4.3 of the Re-Circulated DEIR, include exposure of people and structures to landslide hazards; instability of underlying units due to differential settlement, soil creep, increased peak discharges, surface runoff, or the triggering of localized slumps or landslides; substantial soil erosion; and exposure of people and structures to strong seismic ground shaking. Treadwell and Rollo, the geotechnical consultant retained by Impact Sciences, has concluded that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geologic perspective with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures to require, among other things, mitigation/repair of active landslides that pose a potential hazard to the development of Lots 5 through 8 along Ticonderoga Drive and the selection of foundation systems for all proposed residences that should result in satisfactory building performance. These geotechnical mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval in Attachment B.

Proposed biological resource mitigation measures will minimize project impacts to the dusky-footed woodrat, native bird and bat species, California red-legged frogs, and the willow-scrub habitat bordering Lot 11. Mitigation measures also require the replacement, at a 2:1 ratio, of the seven (7) protected trees proposed for removal through out the project site, and the purple needle grass which will be removed on Lot 8 (Conditions 4.b and 4.l, respectively).

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.

Existing easements are shown on the Vesting Tentative Map (Attachment K). These include an access easement along Bunker Hill Drive to benefit an adjacent parcel (not owned by the applicant), water line easements from the two California Water Service Company parcels surrounded by the larger project parcel, and storm drain easements from Yorktown Road and New Brunswick Drive. An existing 120-foot sanitary sewer easement extends from Ticonderoga Drive to Cobblehill Place. At the Planning Commission hearing of February 10, 2010, members of the public stated that the location of the bio-retention planter on Lot 8 may impede the ability of the Crystal Springs County Sanitation District (CSCSD) to access existing sewer improvements on the open space parcel. Staff has added Condition 50 that requires the proposed access easement on Lot 8 to meet CSCSD’s access requirements. As proposed and conditioned, the project would not change the boundaries of or impede access to these existing easements.

e.

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

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

f.

Find that the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code.

Sanitary sewer service would be provided to the project site by the Crystal Springs County Sanitation District (District). Currently, the sewer collection system is over capacity during the wet season and sewer system overflows have occurred within the jurisdictions of all three collection entities, with the majority of the overflows occurring within the Town of Hillsborough and the City of San Mateo collection systems. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has prepared a final Administrative Civil Liability and Cease and Desist Order³ that includes the District, the Town of Hillsborough, and the City of San Mateo to address sewer system overflows. The proposed project would add eleven single-family homes to the District’s service area. These homes are expected to generate approximately 220 gallons of wastewater per residential home, per day, or a total of 2,420 gallons per day for the project. Per Condition 4.y (Mitigation Measure UTIL-1), the applicant would be required to mitigate the project-generated increase in sewer flow such that there is a “zero net increase” in flow during wet weather events, by reducing the amount of existing Inflow and Infiltration (INI) into the District sewer system. This shall be achieved through the construction of improvements to impacted areas of the sewer system, with construction plans subject to District approval. Construction of these improvements, as approved by the District, must be completed prior to the start of construction of the residences. Therefore, as proposed and conditioned, the project would comply with requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board.

g.

Find that the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (“the Williamson Act”) and that the resulting parcels following a subdivision of that land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use.

The property is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, does not currently contain any agricultural land uses, and is located within a single-family residential district with existing single-family residential uses.

h.

Find that, per Section 7005 of the San Mateo County Subdivision Regulations, the proposed subdivision would not result in a significant negative effect on the housing needs of the region.

The project would result in the construction of eleven (11) new single-family residences where only vacant land exists. Therefore, the project would not result in a negative effect on regional housing needs.

4.

Compliance with Land Dedication Requirement

Section 7055.3 of the County Subdivision Regulations requires that, as a condition of approval of the tentative map, the subdivider must dedicate land or pay an in-lieu fee. The applicant is proposing a conservation easement over the 93.39-acre remainder parcel, as required by the RM Zoning District Regulations. The applicant has expressed an intent to donate the remainder parcel to a public entity, such as the Highlands Recreation District. However, at the time of the writing of this report, no specific entity has been identified. Therefore, Condition 14 of Attachment B requires that, prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the property owner shall either produce a deed showing the donation of the land to a park service provider or pay an in-lieu fee. The in-lieu fee for this subdivision is $236.50. Said fee is for the purpose of acquiring, developing or rehabilitating County park and recreation facilities and/or assisting other providers of park and recreation facilities in acquiring, developing or rehabilitating facilities that would serve the proposed subdivision. A worksheet showing the prescribed calculation has been included as Attachment U.

The donation of the 93.39-acre remainder parcel to a park service provider would comply with the land dedication requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, as the recreational policies of the General Plan support the location of a park or recreational facility in this location. Specifically, Policy 6.9 (Locate Suitable Park and Recreation Facilities in Urban Areas) encourages all park providers to locate active park and recreation facilities in urban areas, taking advantage of existing service infrastructure systems and maximizing the recreational use of limited available land. Due to the project’s urban location, access to existing services, on-site sensitive habitat, and forested character, use of the parcel as a park is consistent with this policy.

B.

PROPOSED REZONING (Recommended Actions No. 3 and No. 5)

As Action No. 3, the applicant requests the County rezone a RM-zoned portion of the larger project parcel (APN 041-101-290 prior to the Lot Line Adjustment) that corresponds to the boundaries of proposed Lots 9 and 10 of the Vesting Tentative Map, from RM to the R-1/S-81 zoning designation (shown in Attachment V). The proposed rezoning to the R-1/S-81 zoning designation would allow for the subsequent Lot Line Adjustment resulting in the creation of Lot 10 (while maintaining the existing number of parcels) and the subsequent creation of Lot 9 through subdivision.

As Action No. 5, the applicant is also requesting the rezoning, from R-1/S-8 to RM, of the 2,178 sq. ft. portion of the larger parcel that, prior to the Lot Line Adjustment, made up the smaller parcel (APN 041-072-030). The proposed rezoning is shown in Attachment W. This action is necessary to make the zoning of this area consistent with the RM zoning of the rest of the open space parcel.

Compliance with the General Plan

The proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Rezonings (Actions No. 3 and No. 5) are intended to facilitate the preservation of an urban-zoned parcel which should be reserved for open space use (due to on-site sensitive habitat) and the development of an RM-zoned area that is adjacent to urban residential uses and does not contain any sensitive habitat. Action No. 5 would result in preservation of on-site sensitive habitat and facilitation of open space uses on the smaller parcel (formerly APN 041-072-030) through the establishment of the proposed conservation easement, which is consistent with the General Open Space land use designation. Action No. 3 would introduce residential use in the area of Lot 10 at the end of Cobblehill Place, an allowed use under the General Open Space land use designation. The General Plan identifies the Highlands/Baywood Park neighborhood as an existing urban neighborhood and the project complies with the applicable General Plan policies relating to urban residential development. Specifically, Policy 8.14 (Land Use Compatibility) calls for the protection and enhancement of existing single-family areas from adjacent incompatible land use designations, which would degrade the environmental quality and economic stability of the area. The land use designation of Lot 10 would not change and the proposed residential use is compatible with adjoining uses, including open space and existing single-family residential uses. Action No. 3 also complies with Policy 8.29 (Infilling), which encourages the infilling of urban areas where infrastructure and services are available. As previously stated in Section II.A.1 of this report, both roads and services exist to serve Lots 9 and 10.

C.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (RM) PERMIT

Per Section 6313 of the Zoning Regulations, all development proposed for location within an RM Zoning District shall require the issuance of an RM Permit. “Development” includes the construction of any significant structure on land, the division or subdivision of land into two or more parcels, and any major removal of vegetation. Therefore, the proposed subdivision to create Lots 1 through 8, Lot 11, and the open space parcel, grading and land disturbance, construction of residences, and associated tree removal constitute development and require the issuance of an RM Permit. The RM Permit application includes a request for two bonus density credits, as allowed under Section 6318 of the RM Zoning Regulations and the granting of a reduction to the required setbacks for projects that preserve open space (as allowed under the proposed Zoning Text Amendment discussed in Section II.D of this report). Development of Lots 9 and 10 would be zoned R-1/S-81 and, therefore, are not discussed in this section as no RM Permit is required.

This proposal complies with zoning regulations applicable to the RM District, including Chapter 20.A (Resource Management District), Section 6324 (General Review Criteria for RM District), and Section 6451.3 of Chapter 23 (Development Review Procedure). The following is a discussion of project compliance with these regulations:

1.

Subdivision

On RM-zoned portions of the property (shown in Attachment I), the applicant proposes nine residential lots, Lots 1 through 8 and Lot 11, as well as a remainder parcel reserved for open space uses. The following are the applicable regulations relating to the proposed subdivision:

Section 6451.3 of Chapter 23 (Development Review Procedure) requires a Master Land Division Plan (MLDP) to be prepared, delineating how the parcel will be ultimately divided according to the maximum density of development permitted and consistent with the findings and conclusions of the Environmental Setting Inventory. The applicant has submitted a Vesting Tentative Map meeting these requirements, including proposed development within the maximum available density credits (eleven total density credits, including nine existing credits and two requested bonus credits). Analysis contained in the Re-Circulated DEIR and Final EIR complies with CEQA and the Environmental Setting Inventory requirements.

Section 6317A (Conservation Open Space Easement) requires, after any land division, that the applicant grant to the County (and the County to accept) a conservation easement limiting the use of land which is not designated for development to open space uses. The applicant proposes a conservation easement over the 93.39-acre remainder parcel to comply with this subdivision requirement (Draft Conservation Easement included as Attachment S). The timing and order of the recordation of the conservation easement and Final Map would be handled by Department of Public Works and Planning staff working cooperatively as described in Condition 11 to ensure the proper recordation of both documents. The proposed conservation easement has been reviewed by Planning staff and County Counsel for compliance with this regulation. As discussed in Section II.F of this report, the Draft Conservation Easement has also been reviewed by representatives of local neighborhood associations, community organizations, and the Highlands Recreation District. The attached draft addresses comments from the Planning Commission and interested parties.

Once the easement is granted and accepted by the County, this requirement has been satisfied. At the time of the granting of the conservation easement to the County, the property owner will still retain ownership of the remainder parcel. While the applicant has stated his intent to donate the land to a non-profit organization or a local government agency, donation of the land is not a County requirement for project approval. However, at the time of the writing of this report, the applicant has been in contact with the Highlands Recreation District (HRD) representatives, as discussed further in Section II.G of this report. No further details regarding land donation are available at this time.

Section 6317 (Maximum Density of Development) and Section 6318 (Development Bonuses) establish a system for determining the maximum total number of dwelling units permissible on any parcel. The section states that the sum of densities accrued under applicable listed categories shall constitute the maximum density of development permissible under this section. The section advises that, if the fractional portion of the number of dwelling units allowed is equal to or greater than 0.5, the total number of dwelling units allowed shall be rounded up to the next whole dwelling unit. If the fraction is less than 0.5, the fractional unit shall be deleted.

For RM-zoned areas of the property, the current maximum density of development for APN 041-101-290 is eight dwelling units (illustrated in Attachment I). The maximum density calculation for this area was derived by the County through the following process:

a.

A density analyses for APN 041-101-290 was performed and accepted by the County in 2006. The analysis covered an 85.47-acre site and was limited to RM-zoned areas of the parcel and excluded areas once zoned R-E/SS-107. The County accepted a calculation of 6.128 density credits for this area.

b.

In 2007, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approved a County-proposed rezoning of the 11.78-acre portion of the parcel from R-E/SS-107 to R-1/S-81 zoning over a 9,000 sq. ft. portion and RM zoning over an 11.57-acre portion. The County acknowledged two (2) density credits for the 11.78-acre area, as the area would have accommodated two (2) parcels under the R-E/SS-107 zoning.

As shown in Table 5 above, the proposed project is contingent on the granting of two 10 percent density bonuses at the time of RM Permit issuance. Section 6318 permits an increase in the maximum allowed density where it is demonstrated that a development meets the specific criteria. There are eight existing density credits over the areas currently under RM zoning. The applicant asserts that the project meets two of the density bonus criteria (discussed further below) thus resulting in 1.6 density credits, which rounds up to two whole credits. Therefore, with the addition of two (2) bonus density credits, the maximum potential density of development for the RM-zoned areas of the property is ten (10) units. An additional density credit from APN 041-072-030 in the R-1/S-8 Zoning District, a legal parcel with an approved Certificate of Compliance from 2005, brings the total density credits for the two project parcels to eleven (11) dwelling units.

Density Bonus Criteria

Project compliance with two of the density bonus criteria is discussed below:

a.

The project preserves over 80 percent of the contiguous and compact parcel area that will remain as permanent common open space through appropriate forms of restrictions or public dedication. For the purpose of complying with the conservation easement requirement for land divisions, the applicant proposes a conservation easement to cover a 93.39-acre remainder parcel containing 96 percent of the contiguous and compact parcel area. The proposed conservation easement is included as Attachment S.

b.

The project employs building and site design, structural systems and construction methods which both reduce the land area to be altered from a natural state and preserve the overall natural appearance and scale of the area. The applicant proposes to minimize land alteration and grading by reducing minimum front setbacks from 50 feet to 20 feet as allowed by the County-proposed RM Zoning Text Amendment (discussed in Section II.D of this report). The setback reductions will minimize grading by reducing driveway lengths and placing the homes on portions of each parcel that are flattest. The applicant also proposes to minimize grading through the use of shared driveways for Lots 7 and 8 as well as Lots 9 and 10, and the design of multi-level homes that follow the existing terrain.

Section 6324.1 (Environmental Quality Criteria). As proposed and mitigated, the project complies with the Environmental Quality Criteria. The project will cluster development and reduce overall land disturbance, removal of vegetation, and total area covered by paving and by reducing required minimum setbacks as allowed by a County-proposed RM Zoning Text Amendment. The RM Regulations prohibit the removal of living trees with a trunk circumference of more than 55 inches (17.5 inches in diameter), except as may be required for approved development. The applicant proposes to remove seven (7) trees that meet or exceed this size threshold, as the trees are located within the proposed building footprints. The proposed tree removals are included in this RM Permit application. Additionally, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-11 (incorporated as conditions of approval), significant adverse environmental impact upon primary wildlife resources would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.

Section 6324.2 (Site Design Criteria) and Section 6324.6 (Hazards to Public Safety Criteria). These criteria prohibit development from contributing to the instability of a parcel or adjoining lands, as well as the placement of structures in areas that are severely hazardous to life and property. As discussed in Section 4.3 (Geology and Soils) of the Re-Circulated DEIR, the project, as mitigated, will be designed to adequately compensate for adverse soil engineering characteristics and other subsurface conditions. Potential fire hazards associated with the project are discussed in Section 4.4.2.4 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts) of the Re-Circulated DEIR. As proposed and mitigated, the project complies with applicable Hazards to Public Safety Criteria.

2.

Construction of Proposed Residences

Section 6319A (Maximum Height of Structures) limits residential and commercial structures to a maximum height of three stories or 36 feet, except as allowed through the issuance of a use permit. All proposed residences are two (2) stories in height and comply with the height limit, as shown in the table below:

Table 6
Proposed Heights of Residences Under RM Zoning

Lot Number

Maximum Height

RM Regulations

36’

Lot 1

32’

Lot 2

32’

Lot 3

32’

Lot 4

32’

Lot 5

28’

Lot 6

28’

Lot 7

28’

Lot 8

28’

Lot 9*

29’

Lot 10*

26’6”

Lot 11

26’

*Lots 9 and 10 are in the R-1/S-81 zoning district and are included for reference purposes.

Section 6319B (Minimum Yards) requires a minimum front yard of 50 feet and minimum side and rear yards of 20 feet. The section also requires a minimum distance of 30 feet between main and accessory buildings. As previously discussed, the project does not comply with the minimum front and side yard requirements. As discussed in Section II.D below, the applicant has included a request for a setback reduction that would be allowed under the County-proposed Zoning Text Amendment to the RM Regulations. If adopted, this amendment would allow 20-foot front and rear yard setbacks and 10-foot side setbacks for attached main structures. Setbacks for detached structures would be regulated according to the Detached Accessory Structure Regulations.

Section 6324.2 (Site Design Criteria) also requires development to employ colors and materials which blend in with the surrounding soil and vegetative cover of the site, discourages highly reflective surfaces and colors, and requires the replacement of vegetation removed during construction. Condition 5 requires the applicant to utilize colors and materials for the residences approved by the Board of Supervisors (color board to be presented at the hearing) and prohibits highly reflective surfaces and colors. Condition 6 requires future development on all residential parcels to utilize exterior colors and materials that blend with the surrounding soil and vegetative cover of the open space parcel, as well as minimal and earth-toned lighting.  For Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11, the condition limits homes to one-story on the front curbside, requires home design to be compatible with the area’s contemporary, mid-20th century modern style, and requires the rear facades of homes on Lots 9 through 11 to incorporate architectural details to reduce the massing of the structures.

D.

COUNTY-PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT

The County proposes an amendment to the County’s non-coastal Resource Management (RM) Zoning District Regulations that would allow for reduced setbacks for residential projects in urban areas that preserve open space (see Attachment X). There are currently 93 RM District parcels within urban areas of the non-coastal Resource Management Zoning District. These parcels, as shown in Attachments D and E, are concentrated in six areas within San Mateo County: the San Mateo Highlands neighborhood, San Bruno Mountain, areas owned by Stanford University, the Los Trancos Woods Area, the Edgewood Park Area, and in the San Bruno County Jail Area. The analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment is provided in Chapter 4.5 of the Re-Circulated DEIR.

As discussed previously, current RM District Regulations require the following minimum property setbacks: front yard, 50 feet; side yards, 20 feet; and rear yard, 20 feet. Current regulations also specify that main and accessory buildings shall be located at least 30 feet apart. The proposed text amendment would allow a reduction in existing setbacks and accessory building setbacks for properties that meet all of the criteria as outlined in Attachment X (proposed Section 6319C of the RM Regulations). In general, proposed criteria require preservation of open space, project conformance to existing development in the immediate vicinity, minimization of grading, and compliance with development standards (including a 75-foot minimum lot width and maximum 40 percent lot coverage). The applicable decision-maker would grant the setback reduction, if requested, at the time an RM Permit is granted or approved. The following is a discussion of the proposed criteria for the granting of a setback reduction:

•

Contiguous to an Existing Developed Area: The setback reduction would only be granted for project sites that are contiguous to existing development, as a primary goal of the proposed text amendment is to increase compatibility between urban residential and RM development.

•

Preservation of Open Space: In addition to the density bonus incentive and the conservation easement requirement, the proposed setback reduction would be an additional incentive to preserve open space. It would be granted if it helped facilitate the preservation of a larger area of undisturbed open space.

•

Project Conformance to Existing Development: For RM-zoned properties adjoining urban residentially-zoned properties, a difference of 30 feet in the minimum front setback requirements can create a visual boundary between the two adjoining districts. The goal of the setback reduction is to better integrate RM residential development with adjacent R-1 zoned residences.

•

Minimization of Grading: In addition to the density bonus incentive and the site design criteria, a setback reduction would be an additional incentive to minimize project grading and would only be granted under this condition.

•

Compliance with Development Standards (including a 75-foot minimum lot width and maximum 40 percent lot coverage): Development standards have been proposed as criteria for granting of a setback reduction in order to minimize potential visual impacts of bringing development closer to roadways. The RM District Regulations do not contain a lot coverage limit nor a minimum lot width requirement, as do most urban residential districts. As many urban residential districts do not have a floor area limit, it would be appropriate to restrict the size and bulk of RM development using these criteria in order to increase the compatibility of RM development with existing urban residential development.

Requested Setback Reduction for Project Site

Regarding the project site, application of the required 50-foot front yard setback and 20-foot side yard setbacks under the existing regulations would result in homes being located on extremely steep portions of the property along Ticonderoga Drive and Bunker Hill Drive, resulting in additional grading and a greater area of land disturbance to provide for home sites and driveways. In addition, the applicant has proposed lots that are similar in size to adjacent urban residential lots in order to preserve open space. The proposed lots cannot accommodate the 30-foot minimum distance between the main house and any accessory structures as required under the standard RM zoning. Based on the foregoing, the applicant supports the proposed zoning text amendment. As described in Section I.C of this report, per Conditions 8, 9 and 34, for Lots 8 and 11, the front and side setbacks would be measured from the edge of any “no-build” areas, rather than from the property lines.

The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would also require the proposed residential parcels to comply with select urban residential development standards to increase compatibility with surrounding urban residential development, such as minimum lot width and maximum lot coverage requirements. For example, proposed development standard criteria establish a maximum lot coverage of 40%. Per Conditions 8, 9, and 34, for Lots 8 and 11, the calculation of lot coverage would exclude “no-build” areas on these lots. Under this calculation, lot coverage would increase from 11.9% to 15% for Lot 8 and from 11.3% to 14.2% for Lot 11, but both parcels would still comply with the maximum lot coverage.

Table 7
Project Compliance with Lot Width
and Lot Coverage Development Standards

Zoning District

Lot No.

Lot Width

Lot Coverage

Existing RM

None

None

Proposed RM Text Amendment*

75

40%

Lot 1

82.3

27.8%

Lot 2

82

27.8%

Lot 3

82

20.7%

Lot 4

85.4

22.2%

Lot 5

85

24%

Lot 6

80.9

22.6%

Lot 7

75

22.3%

Lot 8

128

15%*

Lot 11

220

14.2%*

R-1/S-81

50

40%

Lot 9

100

20.5%

Lot 10

110

20.9%

Note: While there is no minimum lot width or maximum lot coverage set by the RM Regulations, the proposed RM Text Amendment would limit Lot Width to a minimum of 75 feet and Lot Coverage to a maximum of 40%.

*Lots 8 and 11 contain “No-Build Zones.” Per Conditions 8, 9, and 34, the table shows the calculation of lot coverage excluding the “No-Build” areas.

Available Setback Reduction for Six Unincorporated Areas of the County

As stated previously, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would allow a setback reduction for projects meeting outlined criteria for 93 RM District parcels located within urban areas of the non-coastal Resource Management Zoning District. Properties affected are identified on maps and listed by Assessor’s Parcel Number in Attachment F. As discussed in Chapter 4.5 of the Re-Circulated DEIR, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would not result in any significant impacts and, therefore, does not require any mitigation. Instead, the proposed criteria would narrow the field of eligible projects such that the granting of a setback reduction would result in a positive impact on the environment, resulting in increased open space, clustering of new development with existing development, and minimization of grading and land disturbance.

Compliance with the General Plan

The proposed Zoning Text Amendment complies with applicable General Plan Urban Land Use policies, including protecting and enhancing the character of existing single-family areas (Policy 8.14), encouraging efficient and effective infrastructure (Policy 8.31), and regulating height, bulk, and setbacks such that proposed and future development of the parcels would be compatible with parcel sizes (Policy 8.38).

E.

GRADING PERMIT

Compliance with Grading Regulations

The project would involve approximately 6,700 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,600 cubic yards of fill for the development of the eleven residential parcels. The applicant proposes to import approximately 900 cubic yards. As discussed in the FEIR, the grading quantities have changed from those amounts presented in the Re-Circulated DEIR. The quantities reported in the Re-Circulated DEIR accounted for the amount of cut and fill required for the development of driveways and other subdivision improvements but did not include the amount of grading required to construct building pads to the sub-floor elevations shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. The changes to the cut and fill quantities, including grading for the building pads, driveways, and other subdivision improvements, are reflected below in Table 8, below.

Table 8
Changes to Proposed Earthwork

Area

Originally
Proposed
Cut (cy)

Revised Cut (cy)

Change

Originally
Proposed
Fill (cy)

Revised
Fill (cy)

Change

Lots 1 - 4

500

500

0

200

2,300

+2,100

Lots 5 - 8

1,000

4,700

+3,700

1,000

700

-300

Lots 9 and 10

900

300

-600

2,900

2,900

0

Lot 11

1,300

1,200

-100

1,300

1,000

-300

Total

3,700

6,700

+3,000

5,900

7,600

+1,700

Import

2,200

900*

-1,300

*Includes 200 cubic yards of drain rock.

As the table shows, the total amount of proposed cut for the project has increased by about 3,700 cubic yards, primarily because of landslide mitigation on Lots 5 through 8. This additional grading is necessary to remove the existing unconsolidated landslide material on these lots.

The total amount of proposed fill for the project has increased by about 2,100 cubic yards, mainly for constructing building pads and driveways on Lots 1 through 4. It should be noted that the proposed import for the project under this design has decreased from 2,200 cubic yards to 700 cubic yards (not including 200 cubic yards of drain rock).

In order to approve the requested grading permit, the Board of Supervisors must make the required findings contained in the Grading Regulations. The findings and supporting evidence are outlined below:

1.

That the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

The proposed grading has the potential to result in air quality impacts including the generation of pollutants and potential release of asbestos contained within the serpentine bedrock, substantial soil erosion and impacts to the dusky-footed woodrat, native bird and bat species, California red-legged frogs, and the willow-scrub habitat bordering Lot 11. Implementation of proposed mitigation measures (as incorporated as conditions of approval) would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

2.

That the project conforms to the criteria of Chapter 8, Division VII, San Mateo County Ordinance Code (Grading Regulations), including the grading standards referenced in Section 8605.

The applicant has submitted Grading and Detention Plans as well as Erosion Control Plans for the eleven residential parcels. Potential impacts related to geology and soils are discussed in Section 4.3 of the Re-Circulated DEIR. Treadwell and Rollo, the geotechnical consultant retained by Impact Sciences (County’s EIR Consultant), has concluded that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geologic perspective with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures which require, among other things, mitigation/repair of active landslides that pose a potential hazard to the development of Lots 5 through 8 along Ticonderoga Drive and the selection and building of foundation systems for all proposed residences that would be expected to result in satisfactory building performance. The County’s Department of Public Works and the Planning and Building Department’s Geotechnical Engineer have reviewed the Re-Circulated DEIR as well as submitted plans. Applicable requirements of these agencies have been incorporated as conditions of approval in Attachment B. In addition, mitigation measures placed on the project (now incorporated as conditions of approval) include project compliance with the State’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Particulate Matter (PM) reduction practices during grading and construction. In addition, Condition 20 in Attachment B prohibits grading within the wet season (October 15 through April 15) unless approved by the Community Development Director. Therefore, the project, as proposed and conditioned, conforms to the standards in the Grading Regulations.

3.

That the project is consistent with the General Plan.

As proposed and conditioned, the project complies with the policies of the Soil Resources Chapter of the General Plan, including policies requiring the minimization of erosion (erosion control measures discussed in detail above).

F.

MEETINGS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

Through the course of the preparation of the Re-Circulated DEIR and the County’s review of this proposal, Planning staff has worked together with the applicant and representatives of neighborhood associations and other interested parties/organizations, including the San Mateo Highlands Community Association, Committee for Green Foothills, and Baywood Plaza Community Association, as well as representatives of the Highlands Recreation District, to address various concerns.

In general, community concerns focused on the following areas: potential environmental impacts (focusing mainly on geological hazards and visual impacts), land disturbance associated with project construction within the open space parcel, compatibility of the proposed parcel sizes to parcels in the area, compatibility of the proposed home designs with homes in the area and with the natural landscape of the open space parcel, and the conservation easement to apply to the open space parcel. At the public hearing on February 10, 2010, the Planning Commission addressed the concerns expressed by neighborhood associations and members of the public with changes to the conditions of approval as described in Section I.A of this report. In general, the public agreed with the changes and thanked Planning staff for working with representatives of the neighborhood groups and the applicant to achieve a considerable consensus.

Since the Planning Commission public hearing on February 10, 2010, representatives of neighborhood associations and community organizations requested a meeting with County staff to address additional suggested revisions to the conservation easement and conditions of approval. Planning staff and County Counsel met with Alan and Catherine Palter of the Baywood Plaza Community Association (BPCA), Lennie Roberts of the Committee for Green Foothills, and Cary Weist of the Highlands Community Association on April 2, 2010, to discuss their concerns described in Section I.C of this report. County staff has revised the Draft Conservation Easement (Attachment S) and the conditions of approval (Attachment B) to address these concerns.

G.

REVIEW BY THE HIGHLANDS RECREATION DISTRICT (HRD)

At the time of the granting of the conservation easement, which applies to the open space parcel, to the County, the property owner will still retain ownership of the remainder parcel. The applicant has stated his intention to dedicate the open space parcel (Lot 12) to a public entity or non-profit organization for open space purposes, with potential development as a passive use park. The applicant anticipates that the land will be donated when the time for bringing all legal challenges of any nature to the residential development has expired, approximately three (3) years. At this time, no recipient for the donation has been confirmed, although the applicant has expressed an intent to donate the land to the Highlands Recreation District (HRD). In the summer of 2008, the County hosted three public meetings at the HRD offices to encourage public input and discussion of the potential community benefit of the dedication of the open space parcel to the HRD. Notes prepared by the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center from these meetings are available for review at the Planning Counter. The applicant is currently discussing the potential donation with HRD representatives. It should be noted that donation of the land is not a County requirement.

A previous version of the Draft Conservation Easement was reviewed by representatives of various neighborhood associations and community organizations, the HRD, and the Planning Commission. Since the Planning Commission public hearing on February 10, 2010, County Counsel has revised the Draft Conservation Easement (Attachment S) to address comments from the Planning Commission as well as additional comments received after the public hearing from neighborhood associations, community organizations, and the HRD. Revisions to this document are discussed in Section I.C of this report and are shown in track changes in Attachment S. These revisions to the Draft Conservation Easement do not require review by the Planning Commission, as the easement is only subject to review by the Board of Supervisors.

H.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Impact Sciences, the County’s EIR consultant for this project, released the initial DEIR for the project on December 19, 2008, with a public comment period end date of February 17, 2009. On February 11, 2009, the Planning Commission held an informational public hearing on the DEIR. In response to public comments regarding the geotechnical analysis in the DEIR, the Community Development Director announced that the DEIR would be revised and Re-Circulated to include the full geotechnical scope authorized by the Board of Supervisors on September 30, 2008. A Re-Circulated DEIR (DEIR) was made available to the public from September 14, 2009 to November 9, 2009. The Re-Circulated DEIR addresses the geotechnical questions raised by the comments received on the December 2008 DEIR.

The FEIR was made available to the public on December 31, 2009 and includes all comments on the Re-Circulated DEIR received during the public review period and responses to those comments. The FEIR public review period ended on January 14, 2010.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Baywood Plaza Community Association

California Department of Conservation

California Department of Transportation

California Department of Fish and Game

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

California Integrated Waste Management Board

California Regional Water Quality Control Board

City of Belmont

City of San Mateo

Committee for Green Foothills

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District

Highlands Recreation District

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)

Los Trancos Woods Community Association

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Polhemus Heights Community Association

SamTrans

San Bruno Mountain Watch

San Mateo County Building Inspection Section

San Mateo County Department of Parks

San Mateo County Department of Public Works

San Mateo County Environmental Health Division

San Mateo County Medical Center

San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office

San Mateo-Foster City School District

San Mateo Highlands Community Association

San Mateo Union High School District

Ticonderoga Court Homeowners Association

Town of Hillsborough

FISCAL IMPACT

Nominal cost to Planning and Building Department to monitor compliance with conditions of approval for the project.

ATTACHMENTS

The Highland Estates Re-Circulated DEIR is not included in the attachments for this report. Copies of the document are available at the following locations: (1) the Planning and Building Department’s website at http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/planning and (2) the County Planning and Building Department, 455 County Center, Second Floor, Redwood City, California (the Final EIR is included as Attachment G).

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval for County-Proposed Resource Management (RM) Zoning District Text Amendment

B.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval for Highlands Estates Project

C.

Vicinity Map for Highlands Estates Project

D.

Map of Urban RM-Zoned Properties Countywide

E.

Maps Showing Parcels within Urban Areas of RM Zoning Districts that will be Affected by the Zoning Amendment

F.

Index for Maps in Attachment E

G.

Highland Estates Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)

H.

Letter of Planning Commission Decision, dated February 12, 2010

I.

Illustration of Existing Zoning and Density Credits for Highlands Estates Project

J.

Illustration of Proposed Rezoning, Lot Line Adjustment and Subdivision

K.

Vesting Tentative Map – Site Plan

L.

Proposed Lot Plans, Preliminary Grading and Utility Plans, and Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (Lots 1 through 4)

M.

Proposed Lot Plans, Preliminary Grading and Utility Plans, and Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (Lots 5 through 8)

N.

Proposed Lot Plans, Preliminary Grading and Utility Plans, and Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (Lots 9 through 10)

O.

Proposed Lot Plans, Preliminary Grading and Utility Plans, and Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (Lot 11)

P.

Preliminary Erosion Control Details; Clearing, Construction, and Grading Limits Plan

Q.

Storm Drainage Plan and Construction Detail

R.

Conceptual Exterior Plans for Proposed Homes

S.

Draft Proposed Conservation Easement (Revised on March 29, 2009)

T.

CA Open Space Lands Act or Section 65560 of the CA Government Code

U.

In-Lieu Park Fee Worksheet

V.

Ordinance: Applicant-Proposed Rezoning Amendment (from RM to R-1/S-81)

W.

Ordinance: Applicant-Proposed Rezoning Amendment (from R-1/S-8 to RM)

X.

Ordinance: County-Proposed RM Zoning District Text Amendment

Y.

Certificate of Compliance Type A (APN 041-072-030)

Z.

Revised Grading Quantities, dated December 7, 2009