COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

Date:

October 17, 2001

Set Time:

Hearing Date:

October 30, 2001

To:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

From:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

Subject:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Off-Street Parking Exception, and Design Review, to allow construction of a new single-family residence, drill three test wells, and provide a tandem parking arrangement on a substandard parcel, located on Coronado Avenue, in the unincorporated Miramar area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Off-Street Parking Exception, and Design Review, County File Number PLN 1999-00890, by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval.

PROPOSAL

The applicant proposes to construct a 3-story single-family residence that consists of a substandard sized parcel (4,400 sq. ft.) in the R-1/S-9 Residential Zoning District where 10,000 sq. ft. is the minimum parcel size. The San Mateo County Zoning Regulations require a use permit to construct a residence when the parcel size is below 5,000 sq. ft. in this district. The applicant is also requesting an off-street parking exception to allow 2-car tandem parking.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

The Planning Commission voted 3-1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning Hearing Officer to approve this project. Key factors in the Commission's decision were the project's compliance with General Plan Zoning, Use Permit findings, and Design Review requirements at the time of submittal. The dissent was based primarily on concerns regarding the setting of a precedent.

SUMMARY

The project was appealed over the following issues: (1) zoning density; (2) parcel legality; (3) Use Permit finding; (4) appearance of the project; (5) granting of special privileges; (6) project injurious to property and neighborhood; (7) impact on public ocean view; (8) no exemption from CEQA; (9) population growth concern; (10) parcel legality requiring a separate Coastal Development Permit; (11) Design Review standards and preservation of ocean views; (12) depletion of groundwater and infiltration and contamination of aquifer by saltwater; and (13) no allowance for off-street parking exception. Responses to these appeal issues are as follows:

1.

Zoning Density. This subdivision predates the current General Plan and Zoning designations. Existing separate legal parcels may be developed at higher densities provided other applicable zoning requirements are met.

2.

Parcel Legality. The parcel was legally created and was recorded on December 18, 1905, and is a legal, non-conforming parcel.

3.

Use Permit Finding, Applicant's Opportunity to Purchase Contiguous Land. The applicant has exhausted all opportunities to acquire additional contiguous land.

4.

Appearance of the Project. The Planning Commission believes the project is well designed and is located appropriately, given the limitation of a substandard parcel, and will not obstruct existing views from the ocean looking east or from Cabrillo Highway looking west.

5.

Granting of Special Privilege. The construction of an 1,800 sq. ft. home is not a special privilege but is, rather, consistent with other uses in the area.

6.

Project Injurious to Property and Neighborhood. The proposal complies with all Zoning Regulations in effect at the time of submittal, conforms with design requirements which include varying architectural styles, and will not obstruct existing views from the ocean or the Cabrillo Highway to the east.

7.

Impact on Public Ocean View. The project is located near other similar structures in the area, and will not obstruct existing views from the ocean or Cabrillo Highway.

8.

No Exemption from CEQA. The project site is not considered nor is it located near any identifiable wetland or sensitive habitat. Additionally, the project is located in a Design Review overlay district. County Counsel has confirmed that in these circumstances, the CEQA categorical exemption applies.

9.

Population Growth. This project falls within the Mid-Coast residential growth unit of 125 units per year.

10.

Parcel Legality Requiring a Separate Coastal Development Permit. The parcel was legally created in 1905, prior to California Coastal Act or Proposition 20. Therefore, a separate Coastal Development Permit is not required.

11.

Design Review Standards and Preservation of Ocean Views. The Planning Commission found that the project complies with the Design Review Standards and will not block ocean views.

12.

Depletion of Groundwater and Infiltration and Contamination of Aquifer by Saltwater. The well's potential impact to groundwater and the aquifer have been reviewed and approved by the County's Environmental Health Division. A report conducted by that agency regarding salt water intrusion in the area, presented to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2001, concluded that there is no evidence of saltwater intrusion in this area.

13.

No Allowance for Off-Street Parking Exception. The tandem parking design allows the proposal to meet the minimum parking requirement, using less area for lot coverage and a paved driveway, while dedicating more area to landscaping.

Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Off-Street Parking Exception, and Design Review.

FM:cdn - FSML2554_WCU.DOC