20011030-05



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:			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, pursuant to Sections 6133.3, 6328.4, and 6120, respectively, of the County Zoning Regulations to allow construction of a new single-family residence, drill three test wells, and provide a tandem parking arrangement on a 4,400 sq. ft. parcel (where 10,000 sq. ft. is the minimum lot size), located on Coronado Avenue, in the unincorporated Miramar area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

			County File Number:			PLN 1999-00890 (DaRosa)

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 in Attachment A. There is also one alternative for the Board of Supervisors' consideration, which is discussed in Section F of this report.

PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to construct a 3-story single-family residence that consists of 1,800 sq. ft. of livable space, a 440 sq. ft. garage, and 630 sq. ft. of uninhabitable space on the ground floor, and drill up to three test wells on a legal substandard sized parcel. 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 (where 2-car side-by-side is required) due to the size constraint of the parcel.

BACKGROUND
Report Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1831

Appellants: Robert La Mar, Barbara Mauz, Steve Marzano, and Ric Lohman

Applicant/Owner: Thomas DaRosa

Location: Coronado Avenue, Miramar

APN: 048-013-570

Parcel Size: 4,400 sq. ft.

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-94/DR/CD (Single Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size, 50-foot minimum parcel width/Design Review/Coastal Development District); the Combining District designation was S-9 at the time of application.

General Plan Designation: Medium Low Density Residential (2.1-6.0 dwelling units per acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Parcel Legality: Lot 20, Block 7, of the Shore Acres Subdivision recorded in 1905

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map designation indicates parcels as Zone V8, Areas of 100 year-coastal flood with velocity, Community-Panel No. 060311 0225 C, dated August 5, 1986

Environmental Evaluation: Exempt from environmental review, under Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction of Small Structures, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Setting: The parcel is relatively flat and existing vegetation consists of native grasses. Properties to the west are developed with single-family residences and commercial recreation uses. The properties to the west, east, and further north are vacant. Many of the surrounding parcels have been voluntarily merged to form building sites, which are more conforming to the S-94 standards but still do not meet the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size.

Chronology:

Date					Action
December 18, 1905				-	Subdivision of area, Shore Acres of Half Moon Bay.

November 24, 1999				-	Applicant submits application for a Coastal Development Permit and a Use Permit for a single-family dwelling, prior to adoption of the Urgency Interim Ordinance.

December 7, 1999				-	First Urgency Interim Ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

February 9, 2000				-	The Mid-coast Community Council (MCCC) reviews the project, with suggestion that a tandem parking garage to be allowed within the structure, in order to allow more space for yards on the side and rear of the parcel with less paved surface.

June 2, 2000				-	Applicant submits revised plans, eliminating the rear garage by proposing a tandem parking within the structure, complying with the recommendation of the MCCC.

August 3, 2000				-	Zoning Hearing Officer approves the project.

August 11, 14, and 15, 2000				-	Project is appealed by Barbara Mauz, Robert La Mar, and Steve Marzano.

January 28, 2001				-	Planning Commission approves the project.

March 14, 2001				-	Project is appealed by the previous appellants plus Ric Lohman.

October 23, 2001				-	Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION
A.	PREVIOUS ACTION
	The Planning Commission voted 3:1 (Commissioner Silver dissenting) 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 about setting a precedent of approving certain development on substandard parcels.

B.	KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL
	The main issues of each of the appellants' appeals are indicated below in bold type followed by staff's response. A complete copy of the appeal applications are included as Attachment G.

1.	La Mar Appeal Issues
	a.	Area is Zoned "Medium Low Density Residential." A 2,870 sq. ft. single-family residence built on 4,400 sq. ft. parcel is not Medium Low Density Residential.

		Staff's Response. The parcel is a legal lot created in 1905 which predates County's General Plan designation of Medium Low Density Residential (2.4 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre). Existing separate legal parcels may be developed at higher densities provided other applicable general plan and zoning requirements are met. New parcels must conform to the lot size (density) requirement.

	b.	Parcel Legality. A Coastal Development Permit is required per County Local Coastal Program (LCP) to legalize parcels that were created without the benefit of required government review and approval.

		Staff's Response. The parcel was legally created by the Shore Acres Subdivision of Half Moon Bay recorded on December 18, 1905, and therefore is considered a legal, non-conforming parcel. Development on an unimproved non-conforming parcel, per Section 6133.3 (b) of the Zoning Non-Conformities Regulations, is allowed by use permit. County Counsel has consistently confirmed that such lots were created legally and, as such, are developable upon meeting the respective and applicable zoning standards (including obtaining a use permit where required) and LCP policies.

	c.	Opportunity to Purchase Contiguous Land. The applicant had an opportunity to purchase the contiguous land to the east of the parcel to create a reasonable building site. Applicant's failure to act when the opportunity was available is not a basis for awarding him a "special circumstances" use permit.

		Staff's Response. The zoning regulations state that development on an unimproved non-conforming parcel may proceed upon making the required use permit findings. Section 6503 of County Zoning Ordinance requires that all opportunities to acquire additional contiguous land in order to achieve conformity with the zoning regulations currently in effect have been investigated and proven to be infeasible.

		In 1999, the applicant attempted to acquire the additional land by bidding on the parcel east of the site. However, that parcel was purchased by a developer, outbidding the applicant. The current owner has no intention to see. The parcel to the west is involved in litigation due to a builder's bankruptcy, and the property is not transferable until the matter is resolved. The property to the rear of the project site is also not available for sale; that owner is currently in the process of obtaining development permits. The Planning Commission believes that the applicant has exhausted all opportunities to acquire additional land, and does not believe that he has any reasonable way to purchase any of these parcels.

	d.	Physical Appearance of New Development. The width of the project is the size of a parking space. The structure is virtually twice as high as it is wide and three times as long. This building is an elongated lighthouse. How can we possibly allow this type of structure within 1,000 feet of ocean front?

		Staff's Response. The Planning Commission decided that the proposed residence is in compliance with the zoning district's required setbacks, lot coverage and height, and is proportioned to the size of the parcel. Staff has visited the site and believes the proposal is located appropriately, is within the limitation of a substandard parcel, and is conditioned to require the submittal of colors, materials and a landscape plan to enhance the structure and to ensure that the house will be consistent with structures in the vicinity. Staff also believes that the proposed project conforms with design requirements, including varying architectural styles, and that the proposal will not obstruct existing views from the ocean or from Cabrillo Highway to the east.

	e.	Granting of Special Privileges. The fact that your commission granted a use permit to another parcel in this neighborhood with similar non-conforming attributes does not mean that the granting of this use permit does not constitute special privileges.

		Staff's Response. A use permit is required for this proposal due to the substandard parcel size and width. The proposal complies with the County Zoning Regulation requirements in effect at the time of application submittal. The Planning Commission did previously grant a use permit to a nearby non-conforming parcel. In that case, and given those particular circumstances, the Planning Commission decided that the approval of the use permit did not constitute the granting of a special privilege. Likewise, the Planning Commission has considered the present project and its particular circumstances, and made the same finding. The granting of use permits, upon review on a case-by-case basis, does not imply that the Planning Commission's decision constitutes special privileges to these respective applicants. Construction of a 1,800 sq. ft. home in this neighborhood is not a special privilege but, rather consistent with other development in the area.

	f.	This development Will be Injurious to the Property and Improvements of Existing Neighborhood. This development is in a building site 44 percent of the established minimum parcel size, contains a 65 percent floor area, is three times as long as it is wide, and requires a granting of a special off-street variance. How can this development be anything but injurious to the property and improvements of the existing neighborhood and to the general public's greater good as well?

		Staff's Response. The proposal complies with all Zoning Regulations in effect at the time the application was submitted on November 24, 1999 to the County Planning Division. The project's compliance with the regulations includes setbacks, lot coverage, and height. No floor area requirement was in effect at the time of the application, nor was the project, once submitted, obligated to change to reflect the Interim Ordinance's new restrictions. The Planning Commission concluded that the project conforms with design requirements, which include varying architectural styles, and will not obstruct existing views from the ocean or Cabrillo Highway. Therefore, the Planning Commission decided that the project will not be injurious to the property and improvements of the existing neighborhood. Excluding the uninhabitable ground floor (which results from elevating the first floor above the flood elevation), the total floor area, including garage, is 2,200 sq. ft. which equals a 51% floor area ratio.

2.	Mauz Appeal Issues
	a.	Increased Density of the Area and Impact on Public Ocean Views. The proposed project does not comply with LCP Policy 1.5(b) - by approving of building on a non-conforming lot (4,400 sq. ft.) within the required zoning lot minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. increases the density of the subject area from medium low to high and increases stress on vital and irreplaceable coastal resources such as roads, water, and ocean views from SR1. The proposed project and other similar projects will result in walling off of these views. Zoning lot minimum is a good reason - careful planning! The County needs to review projects by and enforce the required zoning lot minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. in this area.

		Staff's Response. Please see Section B.1.a and C.5.g of this report. Regarding impact to public views, the proposed project is located near other similar structures in the area. The Planning Commission has visited the site and believes the proposal will not obstruct existing views from the ocean (looking east) or Cabrillo Highway (looking west).

	b.	Exemption from CEQA. The proposed project is NOT exempt from environmental review. The proposed building site is in a wetland area. The following key indicator wetland plants have been noted on this site: dock, marsh grass, rush and a variety of ferns. Standing water commonly occupies the site between October and March (wet season). The project requires evaluation according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA does apply to this project because the cumulative impact of successive projects on substandard lots.

		Staff's Response. The project site is not considered a wetland nor it is located near any identifiable wetland. It also is not within a sensitive habitat as stipulated by the LCP's Sensitive Habitat Map. The project site is in an area designated as a County Scenic Corridor. The project is also exempt from CEQA because it is in an area of the County that has a Design Review overlay district, and County Counsel has confirmed that in these circumstances, the CEQA categorical exemption applies.

	c.	Population Growth Concern. Data from the 2000 Census shows that Half Moon Bay's population grew 30 percent from the last census in 1990; they are number 2 in growth, second to Brisbane. Please present to us the current Census number for the Mid-Coast and the difference between those numbers and the census numbers of 1990. The Mid-Coast is within Half Moon Bay's sphere of influence and it is reasonable to assume that similar growth rate in communities of the Mid-Coast has occurred. The population most probably is 14,000 and not the 12,000 number being used at this time.

		Staff's Response. This project falls within the adopted Mid-Coast residential growth limit of 125 units per year. Year 2000 growth was 63 units.

	d.	Parcel Legality Requiring a Separate Coastal Development Permit Per LCP Policy 1.29a. Under the County LCP, the determination of whether the property in question is a legal parcel is required to be made pursuant to Coastal Development Permit process considered as a "conditioned use" for purpose of review. As a result, the appellants would be entitled to notice and a public hearing on the issue before the appropriate public body(ies). No such Coastal Development Permit process was conducted to determine the legality of the property in question as "an existing legal lot." As set forth in LCP Section 1.29.d quoted below, the use permit process for development involves a separate Coastal Development Permit from that required to determine the legality of the parcel. LCP Section 1.28 provides that a Coastal Development Permit under Government Code Section 66499.35(b) is required for "parcels illegally created without the benefit of required government review and approval." As set forth below there is strong evidence that the parcel in question was created without the benefit of required government review and approval, and hence was not illegally created.

		LCP Section 1.29.d, in turn, provides that: "On undeveloped parcels created before Proposition 20 [1972], on lands located within 1,000 yards of the mean high tide, or [before] the Coastal Act of 1976, on lands shown on the official maps adopted by the Legislator, a coastal permit shall be issued to legalize the parcel if the parcel configuration will not have any substantial adverse impact on coastal resources, in conformance with the standards of review of the Coastal Development District regulations. Permits to legalize this type of parcel shall be conditioned to maximize consistency with LCP resource protection policies. A separate Coastal Development Permit, subject to all applicable LCP requirements, shall be required for any development of the parcel.

		Staff's Response. LCP Policy 1.29.a refers to illegal parcels created prior to Proposition 20, which was effective on January 1, 1973 (on lands located within 1,000 yards of the mean high tide line), and the California Coastal Act of 1976, which would require a separate Coastal Development Permit for parcel legalization. As previously discussed, the parcel was legally created on December 18, 1905, prior to California Coastal Act or Proposition 20 and, therefore, a separate Coastal Development Permit is not required.
	e.	LCP Policies 8.11 and 8.12 require Design Review Standards and Preservation of Ocean Views.

		Staff's Response. The Design Review overlay district and standards of the Design Review Guidelines require review of view points and design. The project's compliance with the Design Review standards are discussed later in Section C.5 of this report. The Planning Commission, upon consideration of Design Review Standards, approved the project.

	f.	Danger of Depletion of Groundwater, and Infiltration and Contamination of Aquifer by Saltwater.

		Staff's Response. The water quality, quantity, and infiltration of the aquifer for this project have been reviewed and approved by the County Environmental Health Division. A report regarding saltwater intrusion in the area, conducted by that agency, was presented to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2001.

	g.	No Allowance for Off-street Parking Exception, Existing Parking Problem due to Tourism.

		Staff's Response. The applicant is requesting an off-street parking exception to allow 2-car tandem parking, as suggested by the Mid-Coast Council Planning and Zoning Commission. It is physically and functionally possible to provide the standard 2-car garage on the ground level of the structure. However, the Planning Commission decided that the tandem parking design allows the proposal to meet the minimum parking requirement for a single-family dwelling, using less area for a paved driveway than if a detached 1-car garage was located at the rear of the property, as originally proposed while dedicating more area of the parcel to landscaping with less overall lot coverage impacts.

3.	Marzano's Appeal Issues
	Mr. Marzano's appeal concerns regarding wells, depletion of ground water, threat of saltwater intrusion, and off-street parking have been discussed previously in this report in Sections B.1 and B.2.

4.	Lohman's Appeal Issues
	Mr. Lohman's appeal concerns regarding development density, contiguous property, County's leniency on non-conforming parcels, and coastal resources have been discussed previously in this report in Section B.1 and B.2.

C.	KEY ISSUES
1.	Compliance with County General Plan
	The project conforms with the policies of the General Plan as detailed in the Montara-Moss Beach-El Granada Community Plan as designated by Policy 8.8 (Designation of Existing Urban Communities). A single-family residence is the principal land use for the General Plan designation of Medium Low Density Residential. The project, as proposed and conditioned, conforms with the General Plan policies, with applicable policies discussed below:

	Policies 4.14 (Appearance of New Development) and 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept) require structures to promote and enhance good design, improve the appearance and visual character of development in the area by managing location and appearance of the structure. The Planning Commission believes the proposal is located appropriately, within the limitation of a substandard parcel, and is conditioned to require the submittal of colors and a landscape plan to enhance the structure, and ensure that the house will be consistent with structures in the vicinity and will blend with the natural setting of the area.

	Policy 4.20 (Utility Structures) requires structures, including wells, minimize visual impact. Since the proposed well and associated pump mechanism will be of negligible height, the Planning Commission believes it will not obstruct existing views and, as conditioned, all new utility lines to the proposed project shall be installed underground.

	Policy 10.10 (Water Suppliers in Urban Areas) allows for wells in urban areas when inadequate supply, public threats, and low water quality exist. The project complies with the General Plan policy requirements since: (1) at the time of application, there were no public service water hookup permits available, and (2) it imposes no threat to the public or water quality. In the event that a public water supply becomes available, the County may require that the applicant switch to this source of domestic water.

2.	Conformance with Local Coastal Program
	Staff has completed a Coastal Development Checklist and the Planning Commission determined that the project complies with the applicable LCP policies. The following policies require additional discussion.

	a.	Planning and Locating New Development

		Policy 1.22 (Timing of a New Development in the Mid-Coast) limits development to 125 building permits in the Mid-Coast per year. By the end of 2000, a total of 63 building permits for new residences had been issued. The number of permits issued between January and June of this year is 23, and is expected to be within the quota.

		Policy 1.24 (Protection of Archaeological/Paleontological Resources) requires protection of archaeological and paleontological resources. The California Archaeological Inventory has determined that there is a possibility of archaeological sites on the subject property and an archaeological reconnaissance was performed by MRC Consulting in March 2000. This study found no evidence of archaeological deposits or cultural resources at the site, however the possibility for subsurface deposits does exist. The study recommends mitigation if evidence is found during construction. This recommendation has been included as Condition of Approval Number 5 in Attachment A.

	b.	Visual Resources and Design Review

		Policies 8.12 (General Regulation), 8.13 (Special Design Guidelines for Coastal Communities), and 8.32 (Regulation of Scenic Corridors in Urban Areas) present design guidelines for urban areas of the Coastal Zone require that specific design guidelines be applied to the Miramar area. The proposed project conforms with Design requirements which includes varying architectural styles. The proposal is conditioned to require the submittal of colors and a landscape plan to enhance the structure, and ensure that the house will be consistent with structures in the vicinity and will blend with the natural setting of the area.

	c.	Hazards

		Policy 9.9 b (Regulation of Development in Floodplains) allows development with limitation within flood hazard areas. The parcel, as indicated on the County Flood Hazard Map and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Map, is in an area of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave action), where base flood elevations and flood hazard factors have been determined. The project as proposed complies with these requirements, including Chapter 35.5 (Flood Hazard Regulation) of the San Mateo County Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with FEMA requirements is discussed in Section C.5 (Compliance with Design Review Standards).

3.	Compliance with Zoning Regulations
	Section 6300 of the Zoning Regulations establishes the S-9 (at the time of application) Combining District as requiring a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area. However, Section 6133.3(b) (Development of Non-Conforming Parcels) does allow development of substandard lots of less than 5,000 sq. ft. with the issuance of a use permit. Therefore, use permit approval is required for any development on this parcel.

	Tables below show the project's compliance with the "old" R-1/S-9 Zoning Regulations, the Interim Zoning Regulations, and the "new" adopted December 7, 1999 regulations that went into effect on September 20, 2001. This application was submitted on November 24, 1999 prior to adoption of the Interim Ordinance, and under that ordinance's provisions is "grandfathered." Therefore, the Interim Ordinance and the newly adopted zoning regulations do not apply in this case and are presented for reference and comparison only.

Project Comparison to Interim Ordinance


Development Standard			Requirements	Proposal	Interim Ordinance
Building Site Area*			10,000 sq. ft.	4,400 sq. ft.**	10,000 sq. ft.
Building Site Width*			50 ft.	40 ft.	50 ft.
Minimum Setbacks:
	Front*		20 ft.	20 ft.	20 ft.
	Rear*		20 ft.	33 ft.	20 ft.
	Sides*		10 ft.	10 ft.	10 ft.
Lot Coverage*			30%	25%	30%
Building Floor Area			None	2,870 sq. ft.	2,400 sq. ft.
Building Height*			36 ft.	36 ft.	28 ft.
Daylight Plane			None		None
Minimum Parking*			2 covered spaces	2 covered spaces (tandem)	2 covered spaces
*		Asterisk indicates the development standards that applied for reviewing this project. The project was submitted prior to any Interim Ordinances or new ordinances adopted for the Mid-Coast area.
**		Requires a use permit.

Project Comparison to the Zoning Regulations Adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on August 21, 2001 (effective September 20, 2001)


Development Standard			Adopted Mid-Coast Regulations	DaRosa Proposal	Conforms	Does Not Conform

Building Site Width*			50 ft.	40 ft.		X
Building Site Area*			10,000 sq. ft.	4,400 sq. ft.		X
Building Setbacks:*
	Front:	20 ft.	20 ft.	20 ft.	X
	Sides:	10 ft.	10 ft.	10 ft.	X
	Rear:	20 ft.	20 ft.	33 ft.	X
Building Site Coverage*			30%	25%	X
Building Floor Area			48% of parcel size	65%		X
Building Height* (measurement from base flood elevation)			28 ft.	28 ft. (measurement from base flood elevation)
Daylight Plane			20 ft. walls then 45_ angle to roof	All elevations do not work.		X
Façade Articulation			Break up in planes, all four sides
*	Asterisk indicates the development standards that applied for reviewing this project. The project was submitted prior to any Interim Ordinances or new ordinances adopted for the Mid-Coast area.


	Note that the proposed floor area above indicates the uninhabitable ground floor which results from elevating the first habitable floor above the flood elevation. Excluding the uninhabitable ground floor leaves a flood area of 2,200 sq. ft./51%, including garage.

4.	Use Permit Findings
	The parcel was legally created by the Shore Acres Subdivision and, therefore, the parcel is considered legal non-conforming due to its substandard size. As required by Section 6133.3(b), development on an unimproved non-conforming parcel, which does not conform with the zoning regulation currently in effect, requires the issuance of a use permit. The following findings, as required by Section 6133.3.b.3 of the County Zoning Regulations, must be made to approve a use permit for the proposed project.

	a.	The proposed development is proportioned to the size of the parcel on which it is being built.

		The proposed residence is in compliance with the required setback, lot coverage, and height requirements. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission believe that the proposed project is proportioned to the size of the parcel and thus this finding can be made.

	b.	All opportunities to acquire additional contiguous land have been investigated.

		There is no available contiguous land. The applicant has made attempts to purchase the parcel to the east, in 1998 and in 1999. The easterly parcel was sold in 1999 and the current owner has no intention to sell. The parcel to the west is involved in litigation and the property is not transferable until the matter is resolved. The property to the rear of the project site is also not available for sale, and its owner is currently in the process of obtaining development permits. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission believe all opportunities to acquire additional land have been exhausted.

	c.	The proposed development is as nearly in conformance with the zoning regulations currently in effect as is reasonably possible.

		As discussed above, the proposal is in conformance with the zoning standards, with the exception of parcel size, parcel width, and tandem parking. In spite of the parcel's non-conformity and tandem parking design, the setbacks, lot coverage, height and design of the proposal are in conformance with the standards in this zoning district at the time of application submittal. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission believe the project is as nearly in conformance with the applicable zoning regulations as is reasonably possible.

	d.	The establishment, maintenance, and/or conducting of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.

		The Planning Commission has considered the application and believes the proposal would have no impact on surrounding properties and would not obstruct public or private access or views, is proportioned with the non-conforming parcel, and will be in harmony with the local surrounding development.

	e.	Use permit approval does not constitute a granting of special privileges.

		The proposed residence will be similar to other single-family residences in the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission believe that the approval of the use permit would not constitute a granting of a special privilege.

5.	Compliance with Design Review Standards
	The Planning Commission requested additional written analysis of the project's compliance with Design Review standards. The following standards of County Zoning Regulations, Section 6565.7, are discussed.

	a.	Proposed structures are designed and situated so as to retain and blend in with the natural vegetation and landforms of the site and to ensure adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties. The proposal is conditioned to require the submittal of exterior colors and material samples, a landscape plan (see staff response in Section 1.f), to enhance the structure, and ensure that the house blends with the natural setting of the area. The location of the project complies with the required 10-foot side yard setbacks. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission believe the project includes adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties.

	b.	Where grading is necessary for the construction of structures and paved areas, it blends with adjacent landforms through the use of contour grading rather than harsh cutting or terracing of the site, and does not create problems of drainage or erosion on its site or adjacent property. The site is relatively flat and requires minimal grading for construction of the structure.

	c.	Streams and other natural drainage systems are not altered so as to affect their character and thereby using problems of drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation. There are no streams or natural drainage systems at the site.

	d.	Structures are located outside flood zones, drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation. The project is on a legal parcel located within a designated Flood Zone V8, which requires all new and substantially improved buildings be elevated to or above the base flood elevation (BFE) of 27 feet above sea level. Section 6565.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates that on an appeal, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors shall apply the following principle, "regulation of design should not be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is precluded in the design of any particular building , rather the regulation exercised should only be the minimum necessary to achieve the overall objective as set forth in Section 6565.3, Requirements for Design Review and Approval." LCP Policy 9.9.b (Regulation of Development in Floodplains) allows limited development within flood hazard areas. The proposed structure has been raised to a 3-story structure with a first story as non-habitable space with break-away walls, the bottom of the lowest supporting member at 28 feet above sea level, and two habitable stories above it.

	e.	Trees and other vegetation land cover are removed only when necessary for the construction of the structures or paved areas in order to reduce erosion and impacts on natural drainage channels, and maintain surface runoff at acceptable levels. The site contains no trees, and is covered with existing vegetation consisting of native grass. The applicant is required, per Condition No. 10 in Attachment A, to include stormwater runoff prevention measures, and to submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

	f.	A smooth transition is maintained between development and adjacent open areas through the use of natural landscaping and plant materials which are native or appropriate to the area. A landscape plan is required per Condition No. 8. The goal of the required landscape plan is to soften the impact of the building from the street and the sides. The plan shall include a minimum of three (3) trees in the front of the property and two (2) trees in the rear. A minimum of twenty (20) shrubs shall be included in the design for the front of the residence. Areas in the front of the property that do not contain trees, shrubs, or landscape shall be planted with groundcover.

	g.	Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of tree and vegetative matter at the end view corridors. The project does not include any such vegetation removal. The proposed residence is in compliance with the zoning district's required setbacks, lot coverage, and height requirements. The Planning Commission believes the proposal is located appropriately, within the limitation of a substandard parcel, and is conditioned to require the submittal of colors and a landscape plan to enhance the structure to ensure that the house will be consistent with structures in the vicinity. The Planning Commission also believes that the proposed project conforms with design requirements which include varying architectural styles, and that it will not obstruct existing views from the ocean looking east or from Cabrillo Highway looking towards the ocean.

	h.	Construction on ridgelines blends with the existing silhouette and by maintaining natural vegetative masses and land forms, and does not extend above the height of the forest or tree canopy. The project is not located on a ridgeline.

	i.	Structures are set back from the edge of the bluffs and cliffs to protect views from scenic areas below. The site is not located on the edge of a bluff or cliff.

	j.	Public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands are protected. Please see Section C.5.g of this report.

	k.	Varying architectural styles are made compatible through the use of similar material and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project conforms with design requirements which includes varying architectural styles. Houses of similar colors and materials appear in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal is conditioned to require the submittal of colors and a landscape plan to enhance the structure, and to ensure that the house design will be consistent with other structures in the vicinity and will blend with the natural setting of the area.

	l.	The design of the structure is appropriate to the use of the property and is in harmony with the shape, size, and scale of the adjacent building in the community. There have been other properties developed in the area that are similar in design, shape, size, and scale. The floor area ratio, as calculated under the previous but applicable Interim Regulations, of existing single-family residential development located within 300 feet of the project site ranges from 32.7 percent to 61.1 percent. The proposed project has a 51 percent floor area ratio of habitable floor area ratio including garage, which is within the floor area range of the existing development in the area. Therefore, the Planning Commission believes that the design is in compliance.
	m.	Overhead utility lines are placed underground where appropriate to reduce the visual impact in open and scenic areas. The project will comply with this standard; Condition No. 4 has been included in Attachment A to require utility lines to be installed underground.

	n.	The number, location, size, design, lighting, materials, and use of colors in signs are compatible with the architectural style of the structure they identify and harmonize with their surroundings. There are no signs proposed for this project.

	o.	Paved areas are integrated into the site, relate to their structure, and are landscaped to reduce visual impact from residential areas and from roadways. The tandem parking design allows the proposal to meet the minimum parking requirement for a single-family dwelling, using less area for a paved driveway than if a 1-car garage was located at the rear of the property, while dedicating more area to landscaping to reduce the visual impact.

D.	CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
	Councilman Dennis Coleman and Mayor Deborah Ruddock of the City of Half Moon Bay had concerns regarding the County's need for a proportionality rule to adjust the scale of buildings on substandard parcels, and that the project adversely affects conditions in the city (see Attachment H). The Councilman and Mayor also stated concerns with the project's compliance with the LCP Policies, proportionality rule, build-out limits of the LCP, and merging parcels. These concerns were addressed at the Planning Commission hearing and in this report. The Planning Commission, with that consideration, approved the project by a vote of three to one (3:1).

	The applicant submitted the application to the County Planning Division on November 24, 1999, prior to the adoption of the Urgency Interim Ordinance. Regarding the Councilman's proposal for the County's suspension of development on non-conforming parcels, the County is obligated to accept and process any proposal on a legal parcel that conforms to the County's Zoning and General Plan requirements.

E.	OTHER AND LATE COMMENTS
	Staff also received a letter from Kathryn V. Slater-Carter on the day of and prior to the Planning Commission hearing, which was given to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Ms. Carter's concerns regarding depletion of wells, water quality, and saltwater intrusion in the area were addressed at the hearing and in Section B.2.f of this report. The Planning Commission, with that consideration, approved the project by a vote of three to one.

	Staff also received late comments from Barbara Mauz and Steve Marzano on August 30, and September 4, 2001 respectively. The comments regarding the build-out numbers of the LCP, parcel size, zoning density, acquisition of additional land, and wetland have been discussed in this report. These comments are incorporated to this report as Attachment I.
F.	ALTERNATIVE
	An alternative which the Board of Supervisors could consider is to redesign the project to a 2-story building, with 5-foot side-yard setbacks instead of the 10 feet minimum requirement for this district. This would allow the project to go "out" rather than "up" resulting in greater lot coverage, but of lower height, with a "flatter" vs. a "taller" appearance.

G.	ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
	Exempt from environmental review, under Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction of Small Structures, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Exemption will be filed and posted for review forthwith.

H.	REVIEWING AGENCIES
	Building Inspection Section
	Department of Public Works
	Environmental Health Division
	Half Moon Bay Fire District
	Mid-Coast Community Council
	California Coastal Commission
	Geotechnical Division
	Sonoma State University
	Granada Sanitary District
	Coastside County Water District

ATTACHMENTS
A.	Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval
B.	General Location Map
C.	Vicinity Map
D.	Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations of Proposed Residence
E.	Project's Comparison to other Similar Projects in the Area
F.	United States Census Population Growth Comparison of the Area
G.	Appeal Letter
H.	City of Half Moon Bay Letter
I.	Late Comments

FSM:kcd - FSML2555_WKU.DOC


Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit or Project File Number: PLN 1999-00890				Hearing Date: October 30, 2001

Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi			For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors


RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

Regarding the Coastal Development Permit, Find That:
1.	The projects, as described in the application and accompanying materials required by Zoning Regulations Section 6328.7, and as conditioned in conformance with Section 6328.14, conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program.

2.	The projects conform to the specific findings required by policies of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program.

3.	The number of building permits for construction of single-family residences other than for affordable housing issued in the calendar year does not exceed the limitation of Policies 1.22 and 1.23 as stated in Section 6328.19.

Regarding the Use Permit, Find That:
4.	The proposed development is proportioned to the size of the parcel on which it is being built.

5.	All opportunities to acquire additional contiguous land have been investigated.

6.	The proposed development is as nearly in conformance with the Zoning Regulations currently in effect as is reasonably possible.

7.	The establishment, maintenance, and/or conducting of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the said neighborhood.

8.	The use permit does not constitute a granting of a special privilege.

Regarding Coastal Design Review, Find That:
9.	The project complies with the provisions of Chapter 28.1 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations.

Regarding California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Find That:

10.	Exempt from Environmental Review, under Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction of Small Structures, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Exemption will be filed and posted for review forthwith.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division
1.	This approval applies only to the proposal, documents and plans described in this report and resubmitted to this office on June 2, 2000, and approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 23, 2001. Minor revisions or modifications to the project may be approved by the Planning Director if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

2.	The Coastal Development Permit and Coastside Design Review Permit shall be valid for one year from the date of final approval. Any extension of this permit shall require submittal of an application for permit extension and payment of applicable permit extension fees sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date.

3.	Noise levels produced by construction shall not exceed the 80 dBA level at any one moment. Construction activity shall be limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction operations shall be prohibited on Sunday and any national holiday.

4.	All new utility lines to the proposed project shall be installed underground. However, all equipment, lighting switches, and panels shall be installed above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) as indicated on the site plan.

5.	The applicant shall ensure that if during construction any evidence of archaeological traces (human remains, artifacts, concentrations of shale, bone, rock, ash) are uncovered, then all construction within 30 feet shall be halted, the Planning Division shall be notified, and the applicant shall hire a qualified archaeologist to assess the situation and recommend appropriate measures. Upon review of the archaeologist's report, the Planning Director, in consultation with the applicant and the archaeologist, will determine the steps to be taken before construction may continue.

6.	Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit color and material samples of the proposed project (no larger than approximately 4 square inches) for walls and trims, for the approval by the Planning Director. The colors and materials shall blend in with the surrounding soil and vegetative cover of the site. The approved building colors shall be verified by the Building Inspection Section prior to a final building permit inspection.

7.	The applicant shall submit a material sample of the proposed roof material for review and approval of the color and material prior to building permit issuance. Roof material verification by a Building Inspector shall occur in the field after the applicant has installed the approved material but before the applicant schedules a final inspection.

8.	The building plans shall meet with the approval of the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District.

9.	The applicant shall submit a landscape plan in accordance with the "Landscape Plan Guidelines Minimum Standards" for review and approval by the Planning Director. The goal of the required landscape plan is to soften the impact of the building from the street and the sides. The plan shall include a minimum of three (3) trees in the front of the property and two (2) trees in the rear. A minimum of twenty (20) shrubs shall be included in the design for the front of the residence. Areas in the front of the property that do not contain trees, shrubs, or landscape shall be planted with groundcover. An irrigation plan for the front area shall be submitted with the planting plan. Upon submittal of the landscape plan, the applicant shall pay a review fee based on the fee scheduled in effect at that time.

10.	During project construction, the applicant shall, pursuant to section 5022 of the San-Mateo County Ordinance Code, minimize the transport and discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site into storm drain systems and water bodies by:

	a.	Using filtration materials on storm drain covers to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.

	b.	Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 15 and April 15.

	c.	Removing spoils promptly, and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials, when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled soils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material.

	d.	Storing, handling, and disposing of construction materials and wastes so as to avoid their entry into the storm drain system or water body.

	e.	Avoiding cleaning, fueling or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff.

	f.	Limiting and timing applications of pesticides and fertilizer to avoid polluting runoff.

11.	The project shall include water runoff prevention measures for the operation and maintenance of the project for the review and approval by the Planning Director. The project shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the discharge of pollutants with storm water runoff and other water runoff produced from the project. Please refer to the attached handout which details the BMPs.

12.	Submit an erosion control plan, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to mitigate any erosion resulting from project-related grading activities.

13.	The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and implement such measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs will result in the issuance of the correction notices, citation or a project stop order.

	a.	All landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation practices to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides which can contribute to runoff pollution.

	b.	Where subsurface conditions allow, the roof downspout systems from all structures shall be designed to drain into a designated, effective infiltration area or structure (refer to BMP handbook for infiltration system designs and requirements).

14.	No grading shall be allowed during the winter season (October 15 to April 15) to avoid potential soil erosion unless approved, in writing, by the Planning Director. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Planning Division at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the grading stating when grading will begin.

15.	No site disturbance shall occur, including any grading, until a valid building permit has been issued.

16.	The applicant shall provide "finished floor elevation verification" to certify that the structure is actually constructed at the height shown on the submitted plans. The applicant shall have a licensed surveyor or engineer establish a baseline elevation datum point in the vicinity of the construction site. The applicant shall maintain the datum point so that it will not be disturbed by the proposed construction activities until final approval of the building permit.

	a.	The datum point and its elevation shall be shown on the submitted site plan. This datum point shall be used during construction to verify the elevation of the finished floors relative to the existing natural or to the grade of the site (finished grade).

	b.	Prior to Planning approval of the building permit application, the applicant shall also have the licensed land surveyor or engineer indicate on the construction plans: (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners (at least four) of the footprint of the proposed structure on the submitted plan, and (2) the elevations of proposed finished grades.

	c.	In addition, (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners of the proposed structure, (2) the finished floor elevations, (3) the topmost elevation of the roof and (4) garage slab elevation must be shown on the plan, elevations, and cross-section (if one is provided).

	d.	Once the building is under construction, prior to the below floor framing inspection or the pouring of the concrete slab (as the case maybe) for the lowest floor, the applicant shall provide to the Building Inspection Section a letter from the licensed land surveyor or engineer certifying that the lowest floor height, as constructed, is equal to the elevation specified for that floor in the approved plans. Similarly, certifications on the garage slab and the topmost elevation of the roof are required.

	e.	If the actual floor height, garage slab, or roof height, as constructed, is different from the elevation specified in the plans, then the applicant shall cease all construction and no additional inspections shall be approved until a revised set of plans is submitted to and subsequently approved by both the Building Official and Planning Director.

17.	The placement of the domestic well shall be at least 50 feet from any sanitary sewer line, 50 feet from a septic tank, 75 feet from a drainage field and 5 feet from all property lines. All pumps and motors are to be located 20 feet from the front and rear property lines and a minimum of 5 feet from the west property line and 10 feet from the east property line.

18.	The property owner shall apply for and shall obtain service from the Citizen Utilities Company when it has availability of adequate water supplies.

19.	The applicant shall pay, to the Planning Division, the balance due of the Environmental Health review fee of $153.00 prior to the building permit issuance.

Building Inspection Section
20.	The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to initiating any construction or grading activity on-site.

21.	The interior stairs from the garage will have to be eliminated and the only slab that will be allowed in this lower area will be confined to the tandem parking area only. The remaining area at grade will not be allowed to a slab.

22.	The parking slab must be unreinforced or have nothing greater than 6 x 6 x 10 welded wire mesh.

23.	The main entry stairs must be of an open riser construction and all enclosures below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) must be break-away construction.

24.	All new utility lines to the proposed project shall be installed underground. However, all equipment, lighting switches, and panels shall be installed above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) as indicated on the site plan.
25.	The well pump is to be energized, a building permit is required and all utility lines connected to it shall be underground.

Department of Public Works
26.	Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant will be required to provide payment of "roadway mitigation fees" based on the square footage (assessable space) of a proposed residence per ordinance #3277.

27.	The applicant shall submit a driveway "Plan and Profile," to the Department of Public Works, showing the driveway access to each parcel (garage slab and proposed garage slab) complying with the County Standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20%)and to County Standards for driveways (at the property line) being the same elevation as the center of the access roadway. The driveway plan shall also include and show specific provisions and details for handling both the existing and the proposed drainage.

28.	No construction work within the County right-of-way shall begin until Public Works' requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit, including review of applicable plans, have been met and an encroachment permit issued by the Department of Public Works.

Environmental Health Division
29.	Prior to the building permit application stage, the applicant shall construct a well with the required permit from the Environmental Health Division.

30.	The applicant shall demonstrate that the domestic water supply can meet quality and quantity standards.

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District
31.	The building plans shall comply with the requirements of the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District.

Granada Sanitary District
32.	The applicant shall provide proof of having secured a sewer assessment on the property to allow for permit application for sewer connection.

33.	The applicant shall provide additional assessment payment to the Sanitary District in order to receive a sewer permit.

FSM:kcd/cdn - FSML2555_WKU.DOC

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL