|
|
|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence
Planning and Building Department
|
|
|
|
DATE:
|
June 14, 2010
|
BOARD MEETING DATE:
|
June 29, 2010
|
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:
|
10-Day Notice
|
VOTE REQUIRED:
|
Majority
|
|
|
TO:
|
Honorable Board of Supervisors
|
|
|
|
FROM:
|
Jim Eggemeyer, Community Development Director
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Major Subdivision and Grading Permit, and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), for the proposed Ascension Heights Subdivision in the unincorporated San Mateo Highlands area of San Mateo County. An alternative concept design plan has been proposed for consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
|
Remand the project to the Planning Commission for its evaluation and consideration of the alternative project, submitted by the applicant, to address outstanding issues and to address compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
|
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
The applicant proposed to subdivide a collection of six parcels, which make up the project site, a 27-lot configuration, with 25 residential lots as allowed by the existing R-1/S-8 zoning district. The applications related to this request were denied by the Planning Commission. The Commission outlined various issues and concerns that needed to be addressed by the applicant, and provided guidance to aid in modifying the proposal. This denial has subsequently been appealed by the applicant to the Board of Supervisors.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION:
|
The request for a Major Subdivision and Grading Permit for the original 27-lot configuration was heard by the Planning Commission on December 9, 2009. Opposition to the project was provided by numerous members of the community at the hearing, expressing various issues and concerns. The Commissioners expressed various concerns as well, such as non-conformance to specific General Plan policies, geotechnical and drainage/erosion impacts, and visual impacts. The Commissioners suggested that the applicant meet with the community to seek collaboration in developing a design that does not build on the steep south-facing slope of the site, and directed staff to assist, as appropriate.
|
|
|
The applicant has filed an appeal of the Commission’s actions and submitted a revised alternative for consideration which attempts to address issues raised at the December 9, 2009 Planning Commission hearing. Staff has facilitated two meetings between the applicant and members of the community to discuss preliminary plans, with additional outreach meetings to occur as necessary.
|
|
|
Remanding the project and alternative plan to the Planning Commission contributes to the 2025 Shared Vision outcome of a livable community that will require sufficient information about the project and environmental impacts upon which to make an informed decision regarding this land use request.
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT:
|
No net County cost.
|
|
|