SEPT. 24, 1997

TO: MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL

FROM: KATHRYN SLATER-CARTER

Last week I found the Mirada Surf project ifie in the MCCC ifies. It contains information that I am sure you will find critical to your consideration of the El Granada Waterfront Task Force proposal.

Enclosed is a copy of the June 10,1992 memo from the Planning Staff to the Planning Commission concerning the density/intensity of use allowed under the County General Plan and LCP for the properties under consideration by the El Granada Waterfront Task Force. You should read this to have a better understanding of some of the key issues as identffied by the County; of particular importance are pg. 4, paragraph 2, and attachments A and B.

As you will see from reading this, it is quite likely that any General Plan, LCP, or zoning changes granted to these properties will likely be sought for the other urban RM/CZ parcels on the Midcoast. Eventually our community will look like the El Camino corridor with no intervening open spaces between the communities. 

Some members of the Council have expressed a concern with the unbridled development of substandard lots. In the County General Plan small lots are defined as being under 2 acres in area. The creation of 35 lots on this 40 acre parcel would result in the creation of substandard lots as it has only 2 density credits. 

One other point of interest to be gleaned from this file is that Mike McCracken helped to draft our LCP when he worked for the County as an attorney. In 1992 he represented the landowner attempting to deveLCP these properties. According to the deed of sale he acquired his interest from the 1992 deveLCPer (Mr. D. Brown) in November, 1996. 

I will leave the Mirada Surf file by the computer in the MCCC office.

Date: June 10, 1992

To: Planning Commission

From: Planning Staff

Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT #3: Consideration of a Preliminary Concept Plan for "Mirada Beach Park," a 49-acre recreation vehicle park, campground and golf driving range in El Granada. Continued from April 8, 1992.

File Number: CPR 90-1 (Brown/Mirada Beach Park)

RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning Commission table this item, to be rescheduled for hearing and renoticed at a future date at the applicant's request.

BACKGROUND

This item was continued from your April 8 meeting because the applicant's attorneys requested additional time to respond to County Counsel's memo regarding project density (included in Attachment A, Supplemental Staff Report #2). Your Commission encouraged the applicant's attorneys and County Counsel to prepare additional explanations of their respective positions.

Staff has met with the applicant informally several times since April 8; no change in the project has been proposed. The applicant has requested that further consideration of this item be deferred indefinitely.

ATTACHMENTS

A. Supplemental Staff Report #2 (April 8, 1992)

Date: April 8, 1992

To: Planning Commission -

From: Planning Staff

Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT #2: Consideration of a Preliminary Concept Plan for "Mirada Beach Park," a 49-acre recreational vehicle park, campground and golf driving range in El Granada. Continued from February 26, 1992.

File Number: CPR 90-1 (Brown/Mirada Beach Park)

PROPOSAL

The applicant proposes to deveLCP a commercial recreation project on a 49-acre parcel between the communities of Miramar and El Granada. The project would consist of:

1. One hundred and ninety five (195) recreational vehicle (RV) sites with utility hook-ups, 25 tent campsites, food kiosk, 80-seat restaurant, store, social building, laundry, shower and restroom facilities, swimming pool, volleyball court, and 73 parking spaces on 15 acres west of Highway 1 (hereafter referred to as the west site).

2. Sixty eight (68) RV sites, a 25-tee golf driving range and putting green, a pro shop/office building, 42 parking spaces, and restroom/shower facilities on 34 acres east of Highway 1 (hereafter referred to as the east site). The rural residential lots shown in the Concept Plan site plan are no longer proposed for development.

3. One hundred and twenty five (125) parking spaces and a public restroom on shoreline property north of the site in the City of Half Moon Bay.

RECOMMENDATION

Find that the intensity of development proposed exceeds that allowed by the County General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Resource Management/Coastal Zone district regulations and deny the Mirada Beach Park Concept Plan.

Alternatives to the staff recommendation appear on page 4.

DISCUSSION

A. KEY ISSUES

1. Density/Intensity of Use

On February 26, your Commission received a report from staff, a presentation from the applicant's attorney and comments from the public on the issue of allowable density/intensity of use for this site. After considering the matter you gave a preliminary indication that you favored the applicant's interpretation over staff's. The Chair has asked for further clarification of staff's position. Staff's position is that:

1. This site is located in the urban area and is designated General Open Space in the County General P1 an and Local Coastal Program (LCP). It is zoned Resource Management/Coastal Zone (RM/CZ). Both the LCP and RM/CZ district regulations contain a system for regulating density in open space areas which involves the allocation of density credits to a site based on its size and physical characteristics.
2. This site appears to qualify for two (2) density credits based upon the existence of two legal parcels (each parcel, regardless of size, is entitled to a minimum of one credit). It is possible that the applicant could establish a basis for more credits by demonstrating the existence of additional legal parcels.
3. Density credits equate directly to the number of dwellings or parcels allowed. In this case, the two credits would allow two dwellings on two separate parcels.
4. Both the LCP and the RM/CZ regulations contain a method for using projected water consumption to equate the intensity of non-residential development to the number of density credits. For such uses, each density credit allows up to 315 gallons per day of projected water consumption. For certain priority uses, such as the visitor-serving facilities proposed by the applicant, this amount is doubled to 630 gallons per day.
5. The County recently commissioned the "Kleinfelder Study" to determine standard water consumption rates for various non-residential uses. Using the results of that study, the applicant's proposed project would require a minimum of 36 density credits for the RV park, restaurant and irrigated landscaping, depending upon how the Kleinfelder Study is eventually applied. The table in Attachment A provides more detail on the number of density credits required for each use.

Staff's conclusion is that the project as proposed is not feasible under the General Plan, LCP and zoning designations currently applying to the property.

County Counsel has attached a legal analysis of staff's position in Attachment B.

The applicant's position is that, while density credits apply to open space lands in the urban area, the method for using projected water consumption to regulate the intensity of non-residential development does not apply in urban areas. He concluded that the intensity of development should be determined on a case-by-case basis following an analysis of the overall impacts of the project as determined by the environmental and development review processes.

Staff believes it was the clear intent of the County and the Coastal Commission in adopting the LCP to regulate RM/CZ lands within the urban area in the same manner as those in the rural area.

2. Options for Clarifying the County's Policy for Regulating the Intensity of Use for Non-Residential Development in Urban Open Space Areas

At the February 26 meeting, Commissioner Muzzi requested that staff draft a policy for consideration by the Commission that would apply the applicant's interpretation to all similarly-designated lands in the urban area of the coastal zone. The requested policy appears as Attachment C.

Staff recommends against adopting such a policy. This interpretation of the LCP would apply to all land zoned RM/CZ and Planned Agricultural District (PAD) within the urban area of the Coastal Zone. Approximately 400 acres would be left without defined limits to the intensity of non-residential use. The largest landholdings within that area (totaling approximately 262 acres) are described in the following table.

MID-COAST URBAN OPEN SPACE: LARGEST LAND AREAS AND OWNERSHIP

Ownership	Location	Approx. Acreage	Zoning
U.S. Government	Pillar Pt. Radar Station	35	RM/CZ
Princeton on the Bay	West of Half Moon Bay Airport	135	PAD
Evelyn Thompson	West of Half Moon Bay Airport	23	PAD
Fishing Village	North of Pillar Pt. Harbor	20	PAD
Donald Brown	Mirada Beach Park	49	RM/CZ

We believe that the County and Coastal Commission intended that these areas have defined limits to the intensity of non-residential use (see County Counsel's opinion, Attachment B).

It is important to emphasize that, even if the Planning Commission adopts the interpretation proposed by the applicant, the Concept Plan would still conflict with the provisions of the RM/CZ zoning regulations. In staff's opinion, approval of a Concept Plan which would allow development in excess of two density credits (630 gallons of water per density credit), would require a text amendment of the RM/CZ zoning regulations for designated lands in urban areas and a zoning amendment to modify the zoning of the property. Neither amendment would be subject to Measure A since it would only apply to rural areas. If the Planning Commission adopts the interpretation proposed by the applicant, a zoning change must be made a condition of Concept Plan approval.

3. Project Issues

Based on staff's analysis, public testimony and guidance from the Planning Commission, staff has compiled a recommended set of comments on the project. These issues, included as Attachment 0, should be addressed in a Final Development Plan and Environmental Impact Report for the project should it proceed. Consistent with the Commission's preliminary policy direction on density, they include the requirement that the project density be set at a level at which no significant impacts to the environment will occur.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. If the Planning Commission accepts the applicant's interpretation of urban density/intensity of use requirements applicable to this property:
   1. Adopt the urban density policy in Attachment C.

   2. Direct the applicant to apply for an amendment to the Zoning Regulations, consistent with the Planning Commission's interpretation, to accommodate the proposed project.

   3. Approve the Concept Plan subject to the findings in Attachment D and subject to the requirement for a zoning change.

2. If the Planning Commission does not adopt the urban density/intensity policy, but believes that the proposed uses are appropriate for the site:
   1. Direct the applicant to apply for amendments to the appropriate LCP and General Plan policies and Zoning regulations governing density in order to allow the proposed uses. Those amendments would not be subject to Measure A.

   2. Approve the Concept Plan subject to the findings in Attachment 0 and subject to the amendments required under 2(a) above.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Density Credit Table
2. County Counsel Memo Re: Density
3. Draft Density Policy
4. Findings

Proposed Land Use	Density Allowed with Density Credits		Density credits Required for Proposed Project
	Minimum	Maximum	Minimum	Maximum
RV Park 263 spaces	11 spaces	34 spaces	15 credits	46 credits
Restaurant 80 seats	38 seats	19 seats	2 credits	4 credits
Irrigated Landscaping (Drought tolerant) 1,054,152 sq. ft. 24.2 acres	57,000 sq. ft.	111,600 sq. ft.	19 credits	37 credits

March 27, 1992

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: County Counsel

RE: Density Requirements for the Mirada Beach Park Project

This memorandum summarizes the position of the County Counsel's office concerning the density issue with respect to the Mirada Beach Park project.

1. FACTUAL CONTEXT.

The property proposed for development lies on the urban side of the urban/rural boundary in the San Mateo County midcoast. On the County's General Plan land use maps, the western portion of the property is designated General Open Space, and the eastern portion is designated Public Recreation/Community Park. The entire property carries an RM/CZ zoning designation. The Urban Land Use chapter of the County General Plan recognizes that a General Open Space land use designation may be appropriate for land located in urban areas. Section 6906 of the County's Zoning Regulations specifies the method for determining density on properties zoned RM/CZ. This section specifies that density credits may accrue on the basis of one credit per 40 acres to one credit per 160 acres, and further that public and commercial recreation uses will be sized on the basis of 630 gallons per day of water use per density credit. Under the density credit formula prescribed in 6906 of the RM/CZ zoning regulations, the property is entitled to two density credits.

The current land use designations on the property were originally incorporated into the Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada Community Plan, adopted in 1978. That plan recognized that general open space areas were appropriate to "strengthen the community, by preserving open space between deveLCPed areas and maintaining distinct urban limits." (Community Plan, p. 10.) The Conservation and Open Space plan was adopted to "maintain[ ] physical separation of the individual communities by parks, agriculture, and general open space." (Community Plan, p. 30.) The Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada Community Plan was incorporated into the Local Coastal Program upon its adoption in 1980. (LCP Policy 1.5(a).)

2. ANALYSIS.

The LCP divides the coastal zone into urban and rural areas, and applies a different set of development and resource protection standards to each. As a general rule, development is concentrated in the urban areas, and a wider range and greater intensity of commercial, industrial and residential uses are allowed than in rural areas. The LCP defines urban areas as "those lands suitable for urban development because the area is either: (1) deveLCPed, (2) subdivided and zoned for development of densities greater than one dwelling unit/5 acres, (3) served by sewer and water utilities, and/or (4) designated as an affordable housing site in the Housing Component [of the LCP]." (Policy 1.3(a).) The LCP designates as urban "those lands shown inside the urban/rural boundary on the Land Use Plan Maps" (Policy 1.4), and establishes densities for various uses allowed in the urban area. (Policy 1.5(b), Table 1.2.) The LCP similarly defines and designates rural lands as "lands shown outside the urban/rural boundary" (Policies 1.6 and 1.7) and establishes densities for such uses. (Policy 1.8, Table 1.2.) It is through these policies that the LCP establishes the general criteria which prescribe how development will be evaluated under the LCP.

While the LCP establishes the general categories of urban and rural areas and prescribes standards for each, however, it also provides for a specific exception to these general rules. Policy 1.3(b) of the County's Local Coastal Program recognizes that, "in order to make a logical urban/rural boundary some land has been included within the urban boundary which should be restricted to open space use and not developed at relatively high densities." (Emphasis added.) This policy clearly evidences the intent that a limited amount of land located within the urban/rural boundary would not be evaluated under policies, rules and regulations generally applicable to urban lands. Further, specific policies of the LCP recognize that rural density criteria would be applicable to these excepted lands. Thus, Policy 1.5(b), which prescribes land uses and development densities in urban areas, notes that conditional uses are to be allowed at "densities specified in Tables 1.2 and 1.3." Table 1.2 expressly provides that land in urban areas may be designated General Open Space, and that, for such land, density is to be allocated on a basis of one density credit per 40 acres to one density credit per 160 acres (i.e., the same formula applied to similarly designated lands in the rural area of the coastal zone). Footnote 1 to Table 1.2 references Table 1.3 as establishing the method of calculating density credits. This statutory scheme strongly suggests that it was the Board's intent, when adopting the LCP, that open space densities would apply with equal force on either side of the urban/rural boundary.

The applicant argues that, while density credits may limit the number of single family residences which may be constructed on the property, the density credit/water use formula should not be applied in the case of nonresidential uses. The applicant's argument hinges on the definition and designation of "rural areas" contained in Policy 1.6 and Policy 1.7. The applicant argues that, because Policy 1.7 provides that "rural areas" are defined as those lands outside the urban/rural boundary, his property by definition is not located in the "rural area." The applicant further argues that, because Policy 1.8(c) and Policy 11.15 (which establish the 630 gallon per density credit standard) refer to "rural areas" when discussing the applicability of the density credit/water use formula, the density credit system does not apply to visitor serving or commercial recreational uses on the applicant's property.

The paramount goal of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the enacting body. (Pitman v. City of Oakland (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1037, 1042.) The various parts of a statute must be harmonized by considering the particular clause in the statutory context as a whole. (Brooks v. Santa Clara County (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 750, 754-755.) Literal construction of a statute will not be followed if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute. (Leslie Salt Co. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation, Etc., Commission (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 605, 614-615.) Where general and specific provisions are irreconcilable, specific provisions act as exceptions to and take precedence over general ones. (In re James M. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 517, 522.) The general intent of the Local Coastal Program was to divide the coastside into urban and rural uses, and establish a different set of development criteria for each. In a few specifically limited cases, however, rurally designated and zoned lands were included within the urban/rural boundary under Policy 1.3(b). As reflected in Table 1.2, such land was to be treated, for density purposes, as if it were on the rural side of the rural boundary. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the Board intended to establish no density criteria for visitor serving or commercial recreation uses on open space lands in the urban areas, a result which would follow from adoption of the applicant's position. Under such circumstances, the specific provisions which provide for a limited amount of open space lands in urban areas should prevail over general provisions which define urban and rural areas. To read the policies of the LCP to eliminate any density criteria for open space lands in urban areas would essentially render meaningless the density provisions of Policy 1.3(b) and Table 1.2, as they relate to density for open space lands in the urban area. Harmony is achieved by a reading which applies the density criteria to open space lands within the urban rural boundary.

The intent of the Board is further evidenced by the fact that the property currently carries the zoning designation of RM/CZ, which applies the density credit/water use formula to the applicant's property. By law, zoning is required to be consistent with the general plan. (Gov. Code ß 65860.) An enactment should be construed in a manner which upholds the enactment. (Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream v. County of Alameda (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1174.) In this case, it must be presumed that, when establishing the RM/CZ zoning designation on the property, the Board intended the zoning to be consistent with the County's Local Coastal Program policies. The entire Local Coastal Program, including Land Use Plan policies and implementing zoning regulations, was determined to be internally consistent when certified by the Coastal Commission in 1981. The density criteria applicable to RM/CZ zoned property, including the subject property, was the subject of discussion at pages 150-151 of the Coastal Commission Staff Summary, Analysis, and Preliminary Recommendation for the San Mateo CQunty LCP Implementation Plan (October 1980), with the staff indicating an understanding that the density credit/water use criteria would apply to commercial, recreation, and visitor-serving uses through the RM/CZ. Consistency is achieved if the LCP polices are construed to apply the density credit/water use formula to the subject property.

The applicant relies on the precedence language contained in section 6328.13 of the County's Zoning Regulations to argue that this interpretation of the LCP policy provision prevails over the density/water use criteria in the RM/CZ, so that those criteria may be ignored. But this argument fails, since it has been held that precedence clauses cannot be used to avoid a state statutory consistency requirement. (See Sierra Club v. City Council (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704 (precedence clause in land use element void because would frustrate consistency requirement).) In any event, as noted, the LCP policies and the RM/CZ zoning regulations are consistent.

The applicant has also cited several Coastal Act provisions and provisions of the Land Use Plan of the County's LCP in support of his interpretation that the open space density credit/water use formula should not apply to his property. There is no dispute that the Coastal Act and the LCP contain numerous provisions encouraging visitor serving facilities, and RV parks in particular. In fact, the LCP makes ample provision for visitor serving facilities, and grants them a priority. Arguably, the LCP has not made provision for RV parks at the level suggested by the Land Use Plan. The issue in this case, however, is whether a specific proposed development for a specific parcel of land can meet the land use and zoning criteria applicable to that land. If it is demonstrated that the LCP does not currently provide adequate opportunities for the development of RV parks, the appropriate solution is to explore options, through the LCP amendment process, for accommodating RV park sites in the midcoast. Such options might well include redesignating the subject property. It would be inappropriate, however, to ignore the land use and zoning criteria applicable to the subject property to accommodate the proposed RV park.

Even if the Planning Commission chooses to adopt the interpretation proposed by the applicant, it is our opinion that the concept plan would be inconsistent with the RM/CZ zoning regulations which apply to the property. These regulations apply the density credit/water use formula to all property zoned RM/CZ, without distinction as to its urban or rural designation. Because of this conflict, the current plan would require an amendment to the zoning applicable to the property. As noted above, the precedence clause cannot be used to eviscerate the provisions of the RM/CZ zoning regulations. In the event that the concept plan is approved, an amendment to the zoning regulations should be made a condition of the approval.

THOMAS F. CASEY, III, COUNTY COUNSEL

By MICHAEL P. MURPHY, DEPUTY

The Planning Commission hereby adopts the following interpretation of Policies 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 11.15 and Tables 1.2 and 1.3 of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program, in effect on _______________________, as they relate to densities on lands located on the urban side of the urban/rural boundary which are designated Agriculture, General Open Space or Public Recreation:

The Planning Commission concludes that Policies 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 11.15 and Tables 1.2 and 1.3 of the Local Coastal Program do not establish specific densities for non-residential uses for lands on the urban side of the urban/ rural boundary which are designated Agriculture, General Open Space, or Public Recreation, but that any non-residential development proposed on any such lands is to be consistent with the intensities of use appropriate to the urban setting and to the requirements of the individual site as determined through the environmental review and development review process. The density credit system still applies to limit residential use on such property to one single- family residence per density credit.

This interpretation is based on the following:

1. Lands on the urban side of the urban/rural boundary designated Agriculture, General Open Space or Public Recreation are not included within the designation "rural lands" as defined by Policy 1.6 and designated by Policy 1.7 of the .Local Coastal Program.

2. Policy 1.8(c) requires density credits only for non-agricultural land uses in "rural areas," and Policy 11.15(b) limits visitor-serving development to 630 gallons per density credit only in "rural areas."

3. The furtherance of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program goal to provide adequate visitor-serving facilities (including recreational vehicle parks) in the Mid-Coast area, as evidenced in the Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities component of the LCP Land Use Plan, is best achieved by not applying the density credit requirements set forth in Policies 1.8(c) and 11.15(b), and Table 1.2, to non-residential uses on the urban side of the urban/rural boundary which are designated Agriculture, Open Space or Public Recreation.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

Project File Number: CPR 90ó1 Hearing Date: April 8, 1992

Prepared By: Diane Regonini For Adoption By: Planning Commission

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

Find that the following issues must be addressed in a Final Development Plan and Environmental Impact Report for Mirada Beach Park. Other issues may arise during subsequent project review.

General Land Use Guidelines

1. The intensity of the project should be set at a level appropriate to the requirements of the individual site as determined through the environmental review and development review process such that no significant environmental impacts will occur.

2. The project should include vertical (trail) and lateral (shoreline destination) public access and parking along the shoreline. Twenty percent (20%) of the RV facility's total parking spaces shall be designated and posted for beach user parking.

3. The project should be designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation, should not substantially alter the natural environment, and should not subvert the unique small town, rural character of the individual communities on the Coastside.

Public Services

4. Determine impacts to enrollment at El Granada School.

5. Consider alternatives for providing a park on a portion of the site. Pursue discussions with the Cabrillo Unified School District regarding joint use of the site.

6. Assess the potential for increased crime and vandalism associated with an RV park near El Granada School and necessary security measures.

Visual

7. Determine if nighttime operation of the driving range is feasible. If so, provide a lighting plan which screens and shields both direct and reflected light onto adjoining property. Provide details as to height and material of fencing required to contain golf balls; design fencing so as to reduce visual impacts.

8. The project should be set back from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure that it is not visually obtrusive when viewed from the shoreline. Ocean views should not be blocked from public viewing points such as public roads.

Utilities

9. Assess the need for Coastside County Water District (CCWD) and Sewer Authority Mid-Coast (SAM) system expansions to serve the proposed project.

Traffic

10. Determine project trip generation and assess impacts to commuter peak period traffic, Levels of Service and cumulative traffic on Highway 1 and Highway 92.

11. Prepare a traffic mitigation plan in consultation with Caltrans.

Vegetation and Wildlife

12. Assess impacts to waterfowl feeding and resting area.

13. Determine impacts to permanent or seasonal water features and/or riparian habitat.

Determine existence of a vernal pool in the southwest corner of the west site.

15. Assess potential for threatened or endangered species on the site.

16. Provide mitigation measures for vegetation and wildlife including restoration of damaged habitats.

Geology and Hydrology

17. Assess the historic rate of coastal bluff or cliff retreat.

18. Demonstrate that design and setback provisions are adequate to assure stability and structural integrity for the expected economic life span of the development (at least 50 years) and if the development (including storm runoff, foot traffic, grading, irrigation, and septic tanks) will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion problems or geologic instability of the site or surrounding area.

19. Determine project effect on aquifer recharge.

20. Discuss impacts to groundwater quality.

---

Back to Mirada Surf Main Page