| 3. Zoning and Land Use Impacts |
| 3.1 Land Use and Zoning History | 3.2 Density | 3.3 Prescriptive Easements |
| 3.4 Cumulative Impacts | 3.5 Precedents and Consequences | 3.6 Mitigations |
Please refer to Appendix A, Pages A-2 (Land Use Designation) and A-3 (Zoning).
The number and complexity of issues surrounding land use impacts associated with the requested General Plan land use designation change, LCP amendment and rezoning warrant the inclusion of a separate Land Use Section in the EIR. This section, or at least a compatible subsection of another heading, should address the purpose of the current Resource Management zoning of the parcel, which was the preservation of open space areas and the creation of a natural buffer between communities.
Establishing and defining the existing and historical land uses within the project area, and analyzing future land uses with attention to their compatibility and ability to maintain the character of the existing community is essential to a complete EIR. We would encourage that these topics be fully covered in the EIR, either under a separate Land Use heading or as parts of other sections.
The context in which a project will take place is critical to understanding its impacts. As the CEQA Guidelines state, "[k]nowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project." (Section 15125(a).)
An EIR is required "to describe the environmental setting of the project so that the changes can be seen in context." (Discussion following Guidelines section 15125.) Accordingly, we set forth some of the information which the EIR should include in describing the environmental setting and in describing the context in which the project would take place.
Requested Land Use and Zoning Changes: The application includes a request for a land use change from "Public Recreation Community Park" to "Medium Low Density Residential" and a request for a zoning change from RM/CZ to PUD. An amendment to the LCP would also be required to revise the LCP Public Works Component (Table 2.4, 2.10)
| 3.1 Land Use and Zoning History |
An understanding of the land's historical use and zoning is important in consideration of new projects. This land has always been in some sort of low-density, open area zoning, and its designation as such was a integral part in the development of the current community plan. A history of its zoning and land use from a report prepared for an earlier project proposal* gives this history:
1957: Site zoned Agriculture (A-1); one acre minimum parcel size
1973: Site zoned Resource Management (RM): 5-40 acre minimum for density analysis
1978: Community Plan designates residential (East Parcel) site as Park and remainder as General Open Space
1980: Local Coastal Program (LCP) adopted. Site zoned RM/CZ; 40 - 160 acre minimum for density analysis
1986: Updated San Mateo County General Plan Adopted - Site designated Public Recreation/Community Park
1988: LCP amended to comply with Measure A; any change in urban/rural boundary subject to popular vote.
1990: Mirada Surf Conceptual Plan presented to County.*
1991: Mirada Beach Park proposed to County.*
1996: The current owners of acquire subject parcels by foreclosure sale in a deed recorded 11/15/96
1997: Current Mirada Surf Proposal application submitted**
* Both plans withdrawn later by applicants
** Upon initial review, MidCoast Community Council recommends denial of the application
Currently, the land where the housing is proposed is zoned RM-CZ/Design Review (Resource Management-Coastal Zone: Described in Chapter 36, sections 6900 - 6908 and Design Review, Chapter 28.1, sections 6565.1 - 6565.9 of the SMCo Zoning Regulations. - refer to "Section 3.2 - Density" below -
Note: The following references the book "Granada, A synonym for Paradise - The Ocean Shore Railroad Years" by Barbara VanderWerf. 1992 Gum Tree Lane Books. ISBN 0-9632922-0-X
The Burnham Plan of 1906 shows the east Granada parcel as a single purpose parcel, that is, railroad serving: South Granada freight station and train yards. (See 57, "Granada") On the 1910 town-plan-as-built, this area is labeled "50 acres reserved for car shop and power house." The Burnham Plan did not include streets on the east parcel.
Today, El Granada School occupies the site of the South Granada freight station (photo p. 101 "Granada"). The horse pasture occupies the site of the proposed round house, train yards and power plant.
The Art Institute of Chicago verifies that Granada is the only Daniel H. Burnham town built in the United States. As such, it ranks as a national treasure. Granada's street design reflects the best of Burnham's thinking about urban design. Two world famous Burnham city plans, which in part look similar to the Granada Plan, are the San Francisco Plan of 1905 (never implemented) and the Chicago Plan of 1909 (partially implemented.)
The proposed Mirada Surf project would be tacked onto the classic 1906 Burnham street plan of arcs and radials. This would be the first time that the Burnham street plan would be breached. El Granada Highlands was added to the Burnham Plan in 1920s using existing roads in the Burnham hillside pleasure park. Clipper Ridge is outside of the tract of Granada and therefore does not infringe on the Burnham Plan. See page 59 "Granada" for Burnham street plan as built.
Parklands and scenic backdrops were a prime component of any Burnham plan. In Granada Burnham achieved these components with the 2,000-foot beach front corridor, the 640-acre hillside park, boulevard medians and train station plazas. Burnham invented the term "park chains" to describe linked park areas. Today we would say "greenbelts."
- Between 1908 and 1920, the route of the Ocean Shore Railroad split the parcels.
- Between 1920 and 1949, the parcels were not split by a transportation route. The main road ran along the bluffs.
- From 1949 to the present, the east and west Granada parcels have been split by the route of Highway 1. (See pages 118-119 of "Granada" for parcel configuration.)
3.1.3. Names - Mirada Surf/Mirada Beach
Mirada Surf is the developer's name for the east and west Granada parcels. The name Mirada comes from Mirada Road, which ran along the El Granada Beach bluffs until the late 1960s when, because of rapid shoreline erosion, it fell into the ocean. Segments of Mirada Road can be seen in the surf at low tide.
Mirada Surf Conceptual Plan was presented to San Mateo County in November of 1990 by owner Don Brown and his attorney Michael McCracken. In essence, 86 houses were proposed for the east parcel. A two-story, 104-unit motel with restaurant, shops, museum, art galleries, tennis court, pool and parking for 250 cars was proposed for the west parcel. Fourteen houses were proposed for the hammerhead but immediately withdrawn.
On March 13, 1991, the Half Moon Bay Review editorialized, "Mirada Surf would be the development equivalent of a tsunami. It would turn one of the Coastside's most scenic and accessible open-space corridors into one of the most densely developed."
In September of 1991, the developer proposed Mirada Beach Park. The west parcel would have 195 RV camp sites, 25 tent sites, a restaurant, a fast food kiosk, a convenience store and parking lot. The east parcel would have 68 RV sites, a golf driving range and a parking lot.
Both concept plans were withdrawn at the Planning Commission level.
* - February 13, 19991 SMCo Planning Staff Report on Mirada Surf Concept Plan.
| 3.2 Density |
The current San Mateo County General Plan (General Plan), Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Montara-Moss Beach, El Granada Community Plan (Community Plan) all address permitted and desired land uses on the project parcel. The Community Plan was incorporated into the LCP in 1981 when the LCP was certified by the state Coastal Commission. The LCP Land Use Map and associated zoning map indicates the project parcel is zoned Resource Management-Coastal Zone (RM-CZ).
The purpose of the RM-CZ District is to carry out the objectives and policies of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Elements. The LCP and associated zoning indicate that the level and type of any residential development on the project parcel is intended be low density with no more than 0.3-2.0 dwelling units per acre (LCP Table 1.2). The General Plan also designates the project parcel as "Public Recreation/Community Park". Community Plan Policy 7.10, Visual Quality Chapter, Urban Design also states, "Maintain green belts between urbanized areas to preserve individual community identities." .
San Mateo County legal counsel has determined that under the density credit formula prescribed in 6906 of the RM-CZ zoning regulations, the project parcel is entitled to two density credits. (3/27/92 memo from Michael Murphy, County Counsel to the San Mateo County Planning Commission).
The West Parcel is designated Open Space in the General Plan and zoned RM-CZ/DR. It has a single density credit, and at maximum development would be eligible for a 6 room B&B.
The Hammerhead parcel is in the rural area, outside the Urban Boundary. It is split zoned RM/CZ and PAD. It has one density credit.
-see "3.4 Cumulative Impacts" below
| 3.3 Prescriptive Easements |
Prescriptive easements are a relevant part of the land use history. There are trails in active use over 30 years throughout the property. Applicant has offered to dedicate a 15 foot pedestrian easement on the project site. However, site already contains several easements for a variety of purposes and users. Specifically, there is a 50 foot easement for agricultural, recreational and public safety operations on land adjacent to and upland from the project parcel, including public access to Quarry Park, one of the upland parcels. The easement notation is shown on the zoning map, Appendix A, A-3. The proposed 15 foot easement at this location is inconsistent with the existing 50 foot easement currently covering this portion of the project area.
This easement is used for fire protection by local fire departments and the Calif. Dept. of Forestry. The fire near Quarry Park in the fall of 1997 was extinguished with fire trucks that relied on the fire lane provided by the existing 50 foot easement on the project parcel.
Pedestrians have used the 50 foot easement as well as other easements on the site and have established prescriptive rights to continue to do so in the future. Public access to Quarry Park continues to be provided by this easement. A lateral easement also exists from Santiago Street across the property to Crossways Street. In addition, numerous public trail easements also exist on the parcel located west of the project parcel. Connections between trails on the project parcel and the west parcel need to be identified and impacts of the project on those trail connections need to be evaluated for all alternatives.
3.3.1. Trail Resource Assessment
(From Barbara VanderWerf)
For at least the past 25 years, residents of south El Granada have accessed the beach via a trail leading from Columbus Street, along the property line of El Granada School and across the west parcel. Photo documentation available.
| 3.4 Cumulative Impacts |
An analysis of the impacts of the project under consideration together with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects is one of the required parts of any EIR. CEQA explicitly requires that an EIR find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if "[t]he possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." (Pub. Resources Code 21083, and subd. (b); Guidelines 15065, subd. (c).)
The Guidelines require that an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts must include, among other things, a "summary of the expected environmental effects" of the relevant projects and "a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects."(Guidelines 15130.)
The courts have vigorously enforced the obligation to discuss cumulative impacts. For example, in San Franciscans For Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61 [198 Cal.Rptr. 634], the court called the cumulative impact analysis "vital", and if inadequate, would "subvert[] the Commission's ability to adopt appropriate and effective mitigation measures" and "skew[] the Commission's perspective concerning the benefits of particular projects." (Id. at pp. 73, 639, and 80, 644.) (Accord, Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650, 662]; Mountain Lion Coalition v. California Fish & Game Comm'n. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043 [263 Cal.Rptr. 104]; Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura(1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421 [222 Cal.Rptr. 247].)
Even if the analysis shows that the cumulative impacts will not be significant, an EIR must give the reasons for that conclusion. (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai, supra, at p. 429, 251; Sierra Club v. Gilroy City (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30 [271 Cal.Rptr. 393, 402].)
The EIR must consider the cumulative impact on regional coastal resources resulting from the proposal's required zoning and land use changes that allow a 20-fold increase in the amount and intensity of development of the project parcel. Impacts must be measured in the context of upzoning the 400 additional acres in the MidCoast located inside the Urban Rural Boundary now zoned RM/CZ including cumulative impacts on water and sewer services in the area. Impacts created by the loss of the existing green belt currently separating the communities of El Granada and Miramar must be evaluated.
In addition, the EIR should consider how the various scenarios for the two connected parcels (West Parcel and Hammerhead - see Sections 1 and 2 above) would affect cumulative land use and zoning practices in transferring privately held Open Space lands to public ownership.
We anticipate that there may be impacts from this project which, by themselves, may not be significant, but will be significant in combination with other development. We believe that it is critical that the EIR fully evaluate the cumulative impacts of past development, current development, and reasonably foreseeable future development. The EIR should list all such developments and evaluate the cumulative impacts of those projects along with the current proposal.
Conversion of vacant land currently designated for community park and recreational uses and zoned for very low density development to medium density development has the potential to change the density of development on other similarly zoned lands.
| 3.5 Precedents and Consequences |
| 3.6 Mitigations |