| ||||||||||||||||||
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY | ||||||||||||||||||
Date: |
December 5, 2001 | |||||||||||||||||
Set Time: |
9:15 a.m. | |||||||||||||||||
Hearing Date: |
December 18, 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 Coastal Development Permit, Planned Agricultural District Permit, and an Architectural Review Permit, pursuant to Sections 6328.4 and 6353 of the County Zoning Regulations and the State Streets and Highway Code, and certification of a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, to allow the construction of a 10,920 sq. ft. addition to an existing 3,524 sq. ft. single-family dwelling located at 11300 Cabrillo Highway in the unincorporated area, south of Pescadero. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. | |||||||||||||||||
County File Number: |
PLN 1999-00792 (Lavine) | |||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDATION | ||||||||||||||||||
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit, Planned Agricultural District Permit, and an Architectural Review Permit, County File Number PLN 1999-00792, by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval listed in Attachment A. | ||||||||||||||||||
PROPOSAL | ||||||||||||||||||
The applicant is requesting to construct (1) a 7,126 sq. ft. addition to an existing 3,524 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, and (2) a 7,257 sq. ft. attached deck addition to an existing 520 sq. ft. deck. The proposal includes partial demolition of the existing house with additions to include a 3-car garage, storage, a mechanical pool, two spas, and two partially screened water-storage tanks of 7,000 gallons each (one of which replaces an existing tank). The total proposed structure will be 10,650 sq. ft. | ||||||||||||||||||
BACKGROUND | ||||||||||||||||||
Report Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1831 | ||||||||||||||||||
Appellant: Committee for Green Foothills | ||||||||||||||||||
Applicant: Danial Jansenson | ||||||||||||||||||
Owners: Raymond Lavine, Barbara Hammerman | ||||||||||||||||||
Location: 11300 Cabrillo Highway, approximately 5 miles south of Pescadero | ||||||||||||||||||
APN: 086-201-020 | ||||||||||||||||||
Size: 4.97 acres | ||||||||||||||||||
Existing Zoning: PAD/CD (Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development) | ||||||||||||||||||
General Plan Designation: Agriculture | ||||||||||||||||||
Existing Land Use: Developed, Existing Single-Family Dwelling | ||||||||||||||||||
Parcel Legality: Parcel was created as part of minor subdivision application, County File No. X6E 2832, approved on January 14, 1966. | ||||||||||||||||||
Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Zone Map indicates the parcel as Zone C (area of minimal flooding), Community-Panel No. 060311 0382 B, with an effective date of July 5, 1984. | ||||||||||||||||||
Environmental Evaluation: An Initial Study was completed and a Negative Declaration issued in conformance with CEQA guidelines. The public review began on June 22, 2000, and ended on July 12, 2000. | ||||||||||||||||||
Setting: The subject parcel is located approximately five miles south of Pescadero, across Highway 1 from Bean Hollow State Beach. The surrounding land uses consist of Bean Hollow State Beach to the west, and single family residences to the east, north and south. The front of the parcel is characterized by a series of narrow benches, with relatively flat ground in the rear two-thirds of the parcel. The predominant vegetation on site is northern coastal shrub and nine significant (over 12 inches in diameter) trees consisting of one olive, one magnolia, one live oak, and six pine trees. The site is accessed via a driveway off Cabrillo Highway. Prime soils cover the eastern two-thirds of the parcel, which is covered with native grass and is not currently under agricultural production. | ||||||||||||||||||
Chronology: | ||||||||||||||||||
Date |
Action | |||||||||||||||||
1966 |
- |
Parcel created as part of 2-lot subdivision ( County File No. X6E-2832). | ||||||||||||||||
1974 |
- |
A 3,524 sq. ft. single-family dwelling is built (included at least one domestic well). | ||||||||||||||||
1995 |
- |
A Coastal Development Exemption is issued for an agricultural well. | ||||||||||||||||
1997 |
- |
A Coastal Development Permit issued for converting the agricultural well to a domestic well, County File No. CDP 97-0012. | ||||||||||||||||
October 16, 1998 |
- |
Applicant submitted application for major remodeling and addition. | ||||||||||||||||
October 21, 1999 |
- |
Applicant submitted revised plans. | ||||||||||||||||
March 13, 2000 |
- |
Project reviewed by the Agricultural Advisory Committee. The Committee conditionally approved the project. | ||||||||||||||||
June 22, 2000 |
- |
Initial Study and Negative Declaration recorded and circulated for comments with a 21-day review period. | ||||||||||||||||
July 12, 2000 |
- |
Initial Study and Negative Declaration comment period ended. | ||||||||||||||||
September 6, 2001 |
- |
Coastal Development Exemption Permit, County File No. PLN 2000-00629, was issued for an agricultural well. | ||||||||||||||||
October 25, 2000 |
- |
Planning Commission considered and continued the item to a future meeting to allow time for: (1) redesign to reduce the floor area of the residence, (2) consultation with Coastal Commission staff with regard to size, and (3) preparation of photomontages by a consultant showing the appearance of the project as viewed from Highway 1 immediately in front of the property and from worst case view points north and south on Highway 1. | ||||||||||||||||
November 11, 2000 |
- |
Applicant requested a Planning Commission decision without any changes to the size of the proposal, and provided one photomontage as viewed from Highway 1 immediately in front of the property. | ||||||||||||||||
December 13, 2000 |
- |
Planning Commission approved the project. | ||||||||||||||||
December 28, 2000 |
- |
Appeal filed. | ||||||||||||||||
October 9, 2001 |
- |
Applicant submitted revised plans, reducing the project size by 3,794 sq. ft. for a total of 10,650 sq. ft., and proposed new septic system that would adequately serve the project. | ||||||||||||||||
December 18, 2001 |
- |
Board of Supervisors public hearing. | ||||||||||||||||
DISCUSSION | ||||||||||||||||||
A. |
PREVIOUS ACTION | |||||||||||||||||
The Planning Commission voted 3-2 (Commissioners Bomberger and Silver dissenting) to approve this project. Key factors in the Commission's decision were the project's compliance with general plan, zoning, and Local Coastal Program (LCP) Policies. The minority's concerns were regarding the size and scale of the project. One member added that the approval of the project would be a precedent for replication of the project, while another stated the project did not meet the required findings. | ||||||||||||||||||
B. |
KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL | |||||||||||||||||
The main issues of this appeal are indicated below in bold type followed by staff's response. A complete copy of the appeal is included as Attachment H. The property owners' attorney's and the applicant's responses to the appeal appear as Attachments I and J, respectively. | ||||||||||||||||||
1. |
Project Scale | |||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.20 Scale: Relate structures in size and scale to adjacent building and landforms. This four-fold increase in size of the existing house makes the resulting structure (a 14,444 sq. ft. house and 8,702 sq. ft. of deck) completely out of scale with adjacent buildings. The surrounding 13 lots, ranging from two acres to ten acres, are all developed with houses ranging in size between approximately 1,200 sq. ft. to 4,930 sq. ft. The proposed project would exceed the largest house in the area by a factor of three and, therefore, is not in compliance with this policy. The house and decks should be scaled back to be consistent in size and scale with the adjacent residences. | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: The applicant submitted revised plans on October 9, 2001, reducing the addition's size by 3,794 sq. ft. The project is larger in size compared to the adjacent properties. However, the addition is designed to reduce visual impact, and blends in with the surrounding residences and landforms by using natural colors and materials. The overall mass of the structure has been broken down into discrete components by the architect to create less bulkiness of the structure, with minimal visual impact, especially when viewed form Highway 1. | ||||||||||||||||||
2. |
Development Design | |||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.18 Development Design requires that development (1) blend with and be subordinate to the environment and the character of the area where located; and (2) be as unobtrusive as possible and not to detract from the natural, open space or visual qualities of the area, including but not limited to sitting, design, layout, size materials, colors, access and landscaping. The project will not be subordinate to the character of the natural, agricultural area where it is located. | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: The proposal has been designed with exterior materials to include clear-coated western red cedar siding and low-pitched roofs of a natural color. The project, with its use of colors and material, will be compatible with the forms, materials, and character of the surrounding properties and landforms. The Planning Commission believed that the project, although larger in size, will have less visual impact in comparison with the existing structure which consists of white stucco siding with a red-tile roof. The Planning Commission also believed that the development design is compatible with the architectural character preferred in this scenic corridor. Exterior lighting, as conditioned, will be limited to the minimum necessary for safety. | ||||||||||||||||||
3. |
Location of Development | |||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.5 requires that new development be located on a portion of a parcel where the development (1) is least visible from the State and County Scenic Roads; (2) is least likely to significantly impact views from public viewpoints; and (3) is consistent with all other LCP requirements, best preserve the visual and open space qualities of the parcel overall. The December 13 staff report, page 8, concludes that the proposal would add to the mass of the existing house already visible from the highway and partially visible from Bean Hollow Road, but concludes that the visual impact will not be significant. It is difficult to determine how staff reached this conclusion. | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: The greater portion of the addition is located toward the rear of the property, and has been oriented on the site to minimize the potential visual impact. The applicant has placed the addition in an appropriate location, which balances concerns to preserve prime soils, to comply with required setbacks, and to minimize visual impacts in the Cabrillo Highway State Scenic Corridor, from Bean Hollow Road, and from adjacent residential parcels. As discussed in Section B.2 of this report, the Planning Commission believes the project, as designed, will be compatible with the landforms and character of the surrounding properties, will have limited visual impact from the scenic corridor and public view points, and will preserve the visual and open space qualities of the parcel overall. | ||||||||||||||||||
4. |
Sensitive Habitats | |||||||||||||||||
With respect to Sensitive Habitats Component of the LCP, the staff report concludes that a 100-foot buffer zone between the riparian corridor of the intermittent stream and the proposed house is adequate to protect the federally-protected California red-legged frog (CRLF). The recently published draft Recovery Plan for the CRLF states that development within 500 feet of the habitat for the frog may adversely impact the frog, as it uses non-breeding upland areas for dispersal and estivation. | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: The Planning Commission was aware of and discussed the federally-protected CRLF studies, but agreed with the biologist's conclusion. The biologist report prepared by Thomas Reid Associates (see Attachment M) concludes that the project site has the potential to be utilized as non-breeding habitat for CRLF during the rainy season. However, the location of the proposed project within an existing disturbed area should be sufficient enough to protect this habitat and any other species that could utilize it. | ||||||||||||||||||
The addition is at least 100 feet from the riparian corridor, which is more than the minimum 50-foot designation by the biologist. The report concludes that the closest occurrences of CRLF in this area are one mile to the north in Pescadero marsh and within Butano Creek. Lake Lucerne to the southeast of the property may also contain habitat to support this species. | ||||||||||||||||||
5. |
Agricultural Advisory Committee Condition | |||||||||||||||||
The Agricultural Advisory Committee at its March 13, 2000 meeting, voted to recommend approval of the project with the condition that the applicant record a deed restriction in accordance with LCP Policy 5.15 (the "Santa Cruz clause"); see Minutes of the March 13, 2000 meeting, attached. We understand that the applicant agreed to this request at the Committee meeting. There is no condition for the project reflecting this action. | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: The Agricultural Advisory Committee's Condition has been added as a condition of approval in Attachment A, to read as follows: | ||||||||||||||||||
19. |
The applicant shall record a deed restriction prior to issuance of a building permit, in accordance with LCP Policy 5.15, to mitigate potential land use conflicts with adjacent agricultural operations to the satisfaction of County Counsel and Planning Director. | |||||||||||||||||
6. |
Second Unit | |||||||||||||||||
The project includes a 2-bedroom second unit referred to in the staff report as a "guest studio." The project plans show a "galley" or kitchen as part of the studio. Second units are not permitted uses in the Planned Agricultural District; the guest studio needs to be deleted from the project. | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: There is no second dwelling unit proposed for this project nor do the Planned Agricultural District (PAD) Zoning Regulations allow second units. The outside bar in the guest studio does not contain any cooking facilities, and no refrigerator has been proposed for this room. | ||||||||||||||||||
7. |
Daily Water Use | |||||||||||||||||
There is no analysis of LCP Policy 1.8.c(2), which requires one density credit for each 315 gallons of average daily water use during the two months of highest water use in a year for new and expanded non-agricultural uses. It would appear that this size residence, with extensive water demand for the residential uses as well as a swimming pool, three spas or hot tubs, and the second unit, goes beyond the qualification under subsection (a) that a single-family dwelling unit "shall be deemed to use 315 gallons of water per day." The figure of 315 gallons per day was derived from the Mid-Coast average water use figures for a family of 2.54 persons, was used as a planning figure for a typical farm house in the rural area, and did not contemplate houses of this size. | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: LCP Policy 1.8.c(2)(a) states, "For new or expanded residential uses, a single-family dwelling unit shall be deemed to use 315 gallons of water per day during the two months of highest water use in a year (including landscaping, swimming pools and other appurtenant uses)." This is not a limit on water consumption but is rather a way of stating that a single-family residence consumes one density credit, regardless of its actual water consumption, which may include ancillary uses such as a pool and spa. | ||||||||||||||||||
8. |
New Well(s) and Storage Holding Tanks | |||||||||||||||||
The plans for the project show four wells and two storage tanks. According to the "Project Location" map of the property included with the Archaeological Report, there are two existing domestic wells and a proposed site for an agricultural well. This map also shows one existing storage tank. If there are proposed to be two new domestic wells and a new storage tanks, these components of the project also need to be analyzed under the LCP. What is current production of the well(s)? What production and storage are needed to accommodate the addition with its numerous water-demanding facilities (pools and spas)? What provisions are there for disposal of backwash waters, etc. from the pool and spas? | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: The project site contains two domestic wells and one agricultural well with the potential for domestic use. The two domestic wells produce 2.7 gallons per minute water flow total. The project also proposes two water-storage tanks (one of which replaces an existing tank), with 14,400 gallons total capacity. The disposal of backwash waters from the pool and spas will need to go through a filtering process to ensure that all chlorine and other chemicals are removed prior to disposal into the ground. A recommended condition has been added to Attachment A, to read as follows: | ||||||||||||||||||
24. |
The applicant shall incorporate into the building plans a filtering mechanism of adequate capacity to filter all chlorine and other chemicals from all water discharged or drained from the pool and two spas. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by Environmental Health Division and the Planning Division prior to issuance of the building permit. | |||||||||||||||||
9. |
New/Expanded Septic System | |||||||||||||||||
The project file also refers to the requirement by Environmental Health for an expanded septic system to accommodate the 10,920 sq. ft. addition to this residence. The same "Project Location" map associated with the Archaeological Report shows in schematic fashion the location of the existing septic system. The existing drainfields appear to be very close, if not within, the riparian area as delineated in Exhibit C (page 21 of the December 13, 2000 staff report). The proposed expansion of these drainfields needs to be analyzed for consistency with the LCP, particularly the Sensitive Habitat Component, and the potential impact in habitat of the California red-legged frog. | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: On October 9, 2001, the applicant submitted plans for a new septic system. The County Environmental Health Division, on November 13, 2001, reviewed the proposed new sewage disposal system that would adequately serve the project, and approved the location and the design of the new septic system with conditions included in Attachment A. | ||||||||||||||||||
10. |
New/Expanded Driveway and Parking Area | |||||||||||||||||
The staff report should include a total square footage of impervious surfaces that will be created by new or expanded driveway and parking areas. Impact from these surfaces should be analyzed for conformity with the LCP. | ||||||||||||||||||
Response: The existing paved driveway covers an area of 5,920 sq. ft., and the proposed driveway for the garage will add 3,000 sq. ft. to the rear, for a total of 8, 920 sq. ft. The proposed driveway will use perforated blocks, resulting in reduced water runoff. The perforated blocks create less impact from the water runoff than paved driveway. A condition will be added in Attachment A to ensure the use of the perforated blocks for the driveway, and is to read as follows: | ||||||||||||||||||
20. |
The applicant shall submit a revised site plan, at the time of application for a building permit, indicating the replacement of the existing driveway and the proposed driveway with perforated blocks. The applicant shall submit a color sample to the Planning Division for review and approval. The color shall be compatible to the surrounding area. | |||||||||||||||||
C. |
ALTERNATIVES | |||||||||||||||||
1. |
Conformance with General Plan | |||||||||||||||||
The project complies with General Plan Policies pertaining to Visual Quality, Soil Resources and Rural Development. The applicable policies are discussed as follows: | ||||||||||||||||||
a. |
Visual Quality | |||||||||||||||||
The project is located on a parcel within the Cabrillo Highway State Scenic Corridor, and staff believes the project has been oriented on site to minimize the potential visual effect. Moving the addition closer to Cabrillo Highway will make it more visible, and moving the building site to the back of the parcel will impact the prime soils more than the current proposal. This placement maintains and protects the visual quality of the coastline, pursuant to General Plan Policies 4.1 (Protection of Visual Quality), 4.14 (Appearance of New Development) and 4.24 (Location of Structures). Three of nine significant trees are proposed for removal. Site visits have confirmed that these trees are located behind the existing structure, and are not visible from the highway. The remaining six larger significant trees are located between the house and highway and will remain to help minimize the visual effects of the project. Replacement of the three trees is required as a condition of approval; therefore, the project is in conformance with General Plan Policy 4.3 (Protection of Vegetation). | ||||||||||||||||||
b. |
Soil Resources | |||||||||||||||||
All proposed development on the site will be constructed on land categorized as "Prime Soils" by the General Plan Prime Soils Maps. The Planned Agricultural District allows expansion of existing residences on prime soils. Prime soils cover the eastern two-thirds of the parcel currently covered by native grass and are not in agricultural use. After construction, the remainder of the parcel will remain as open space to the east and landscaping to the west to provide a scenic corridor buffer zone. The addition to the existing dwelling will convert less than one-half acre of "Prime Soils." The applicant's placement of the addition in this location balances concerns to preserve prime soils, minimize impacts to the State Scenic Corridors, and complies with required setbacks. Thus, the potential impact to the agricultural lands has been minimized. Small-scale agricultural uses can still be developed on the site. Thus, staff believes the project complies with General Plan Policies 2.1 (Protect and Preserve Soils as a Resource), 2.4 (Protection of Productive Soil Resources), and 2.20 (Regulate Location of Development). | ||||||||||||||||||
c. |
Rural Development | |||||||||||||||||
The project is located on a 4.97-acre parcel, and is in an area primarily developed with residential uses. Thus, staff believes the project complies with General Plan Policy 9.4 (Existing Rural Residential Land Use), which requires residences on parcels five acres or smaller in size, and in an area primarily developed for residential purposes. | ||||||||||||||||||
2. |
Conformance with Zoning Regulations | |||||||||||||||||
a. |
Development Standards | |||||||||||||||||
The project conforms with the Planned Agricultural District (PAD) development standards as indicated in the table below: | ||||||||||||||||||
DEVELOPMENT |
ZONING REQUIREMENT |
PROPOSED |
||||||||||||||||
Minimum Front Yard Setback |
50 feet |
282 feet |
||||||||||||||||
Minimum Rear Yard Setback |
20 feet |
310 feet |
||||||||||||||||
Minimum Left Side Yard Setback |
20 feet |
84 feet |
||||||||||||||||
Minimum Right Side Yard Setback |
20 feet |
20 feet |
||||||||||||||||
Maximum Height |
36 feet |
23 feet |
||||||||||||||||
b. |
Substantive General Criteria for Issuance of a Planned Agricultural District Permit | |||||||||||||||||
The Planned Agricultural District Criteria, Section 6355 of the Zoning Ordinance, requires the following criteria to be met. | ||||||||||||||||||
(1) |
The encroachment of all development upon land which is suitable for agricultural use shall be minimized. | |||||||||||||||||
Please see Part 1.b of this report. | ||||||||||||||||||
(2) |
All development permitted on site shall be clustered. | |||||||||||||||||
All development proposed on this site will be clustered in an area which complies with the development standards of the Planned Agricultural District. | ||||||||||||||||||
(3) |
Every project shall conform to the Development Review Criteria contained in Chapter 20A.2 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code. | |||||||||||||||||
The project has been reviewed against these criteria, including compliance with the Site Design criteria (see Attachment M). The development does not encroach on any sensitive habitats, nor will the residential development create any lasting noise or dust producing impacts. | ||||||||||||||||||
c. |
Criteria for the Conversion of Prime Agricultural Lands | |||||||||||||||||
General Criteria: Prime agricultural land within a parcel shall not be converted to uses permitted by a Planned Agricultural Permit unless it can be demonstrated that: | ||||||||||||||||||
(1) |
No alternative site exists on the parcel for the use. | |||||||||||||||||
The existing residence constitutes a non-agricultural use. The applicant's placement of the addition to the house in this location balances concerns to preserve prime soils, minimize visual impacts to the State Scenic Corridor, and complies with the required Planned Agricultural District setbacks. | ||||||||||||||||||
(2) |
Clearly defined buffer areas are provided between agricultural and non-agricultural uses. | |||||||||||||||||
The Cabrillo Highway is located west of the subject parcel and residences have been developed on the east, north, and south sides of the parcel. The parcel to the north is vacant and has no existing agricultural uses. | ||||||||||||||||||
(3) |
The productivity of adjacent agricultural land will not be diminished. | |||||||||||||||||
Please see the discussion in the above section. | ||||||||||||||||||
(4) |
Public service and facility expansions and permitted uses will not impair agricultural viability, including by increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. | |||||||||||||||||
Electrical and telephone lines already serve this area and Bean Hollow Road, and the existing access driveway from the highway provides safe and adequate access to this site. There will be no need to increase the capacity or extend new public services to accommodate the proposed addition: therefore, there will be no increased assessment costs on adjacent uses. | ||||||||||||||||||
3. |
Conformance with Local Coastal Program (LCP) | |||||||||||||||||
The proposed residential development has been reviewed against LCP policies pertaining to Location of Development, Agriculture, Sensitive Habitats, and Visual Quality components. A Coastal Development Checklist has been prepared (see Attachment N). The applicable policies are discussed as follows: | ||||||||||||||||||
a. |
Location of Development Polices | |||||||||||||||||
The project will be located on the east side of the Highway, in the rural south coast area within and visible from the Cabrillo Highway State Scenic Corridor. Staff believes the addition complies with the following policies: | ||||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.5 (Location of Development) requires that new development to be located in a portion of a parcel where the development (a) is least visible from State and County Scenic Roads; (b) is least likely to significantly impacts views from public viewpoints; and (c) is consistent with all other LCP requirements, best preserve the visual and open space quality of the parcel overall. | ||||||||||||||||||
As previously discussed, staff believes the addition has been oriented on site to reduce the potential visual effect. The applicant's placement of the addition in this location balances concerns to minimize impacts to the State Scenic Corridors and to preserve prime soils. | ||||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.15 (Coastal Views) requires preventing development from substantially blocking views to or along the shore lines from coastal roads, roadside rests and vista points, recreation areas, trials, coastal accessways and beaches. | ||||||||||||||||||
The addition is located on a parcel east of Cabrillo Highway. The applicant has erected story-poles indicating the most visible parts of the addition (three feet taller than the existing house), with ridges and rooflines that would be visible from the highway, and partially visible from Bean Hollow Road and two residential parcels located on that road. The applicant has placed the addition in an appropriate location, which balances concerns to preserve prime soils, to comply with required setbacks, to minimize visual impacts in the State Scenic Corridor, from Bean Hollow Road, and residential parcels. Staff has visited the site before and after the erection of the story-poles, and observed that the proposal would add to the mass of the existing house already visible from the highway and partially visible from Bean Hollow Road. Staff believes the addition's visual impact will not be significant. | ||||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.18 (Development Design) requires that development (a) blend with and be subordinate to the environment and the character of the area where located; and (b) be as unobtrusive as possible and not detract from the natural, open space or visual qualities of the area, included but not limited to sitting, design, layout, size, height, shape, materials, colors, access and landscaping. | ||||||||||||||||||
Staff believes the proposed addition will not create significant visual impacts from along Cabrillo Highway, Bean Hollow Road, and nearby residences. In addition, the proposal has been designed with exterior materials, to include clear-coated western red cedar siding and low-pitched roofs of a natural color. Staff believes that these materials and the design are compatible with the architectural character preferred in this scenic corridor. Exterior lighting is to be limited to the minimum necessary for safety. | ||||||||||||||||||
Policies 8.22 (Utilities in State Scenic Corridors) and 8.23 (Utilities in County Scenic Corridors) require installation of new distribution lines to be underground. The proposal, as conditioned, will require utility lines to be installed underground. | ||||||||||||||||||
b. |
Agricultural Policies | |||||||||||||||||
The project will be located on prime soils. Staff believes the addition complies with the following policies: | ||||||||||||||||||
Pursuant to LCP policy 5.5 (Permitted Uses on Prime Agricultural Lands Designated as Agriculture) addition to single-family residences in prime soils are conditionally permitted with issuance of a PAD permit. | ||||||||||||||||||
Policy 5.8 (Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land) prohibits conversion of prime agricultural land within a parcel to a conditionally permitted uses unless it can be demonstrated: (a) no alternative site exists for the addition; (b) clearly defined buffer areas are provided between agricultural and non-agricultural uses; (c) the productivity of any adjacent agricultural land will not be diminished; and (d) public services and facility expansions and permitted uses will not impair agricultural viability, including by increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. | ||||||||||||||||||
Please see Section 2.c of this report. | ||||||||||||||||||
c. |
Sensitive Habitats Policies | |||||||||||||||||
The subject parcel contains an intermittent creek along the northern property line where riparian vegetation is located. Staff believes the addition complies with Policy 7.11 (Establishment of Buffer Zones) requiring: (1) on both sides of riparian corridor, from the "limit of the riparian vegetation" extend buffer zones 50 feet outward for perennial streams and 30 feet outward for intermittent streams; (2) where no riparian vegetation exists along both sides of the riparian corridors, extend buffer zones 50 feet from the predictable high water point for perennial streams and 30 feet from the midpoint of intermittent streams; and (3) along lakes, ponds, and other wet areas, extend buffer zones 100 feet from the high water pointy except for manmade ponds and reservoirs used for agricultural purposes for which no buffer zone is designated. | ||||||||||||||||||
The construction of the addition will be located more than 100 feet from the perimeter of this riparian corridor sensitive habitat. A biological report, as part of the mitigation measures for the Negative Declaration, was conducted by Thomas Reid Associates on August 18, 2000. The report emphasizes the existence of potential sensitive habitats, including Tidewater Goby, California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, and Monarch butterfly. Although the report indicates the property does not likely support any breeding habitats for these species, it indicates that there is the potential for these species to use the portion of the property as non-breading habitat during the rainy season. However, the location of the proposed project is within an existing disturbed area that is at least 100 feet from the intermittent creek. The project complies with LCP Policy 7.11 as the biologist recommended a 50-foot buffer zone from the intermittent creek, the addition is proposed with a minimum of 100 feet from the intermittent creek. Staff believes this distance should be sufficient to protect these habitats and any species that could utilize them. | ||||||||||||||||||
Staff believes the 200 sq. ft. sunset lookout deck should be denied due to the proximity of the deck to the riparian corridor. This component of the proposal indicated only on the site plan is 19 feet from the center of the riparian corridor. A revised site plan, showing removal of the sunset deck should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to planning approval of the building permit application. This has been included as a recommended Condition of Approval No. 3. | ||||||||||||||||||
d. |
Visual Policies | |||||||||||||||||
The project site is located in a designated State Scenic Corridor, with the existing house visible from both directions. Staff believes the addition complies with the following policies: | ||||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.5 (Location of Development) requires that new development be located in a portion of a parcel where the development (1) is least visible from State and County Scenic Roads, (2) is least likely to significantly impacts views from public viewpoints, and (3) is consistent with all other LCP requirements, best preserve the visual and open space quality of the parcel overall. | ||||||||||||||||||
Please see Section 3.a(1) of this report. | ||||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.9 (Trees) requires: (1) locate and design new development to minimize tree removal; (2) protect trees specifically selected for their visual prominence and their important scenic or scientific qualities; (3) prohibit the removal of trees in scenic corridors except by selective harvesting which protects the existing visual resource from harmful impacts; and (4) prohibit the removal of living trees in the coastal zone with a trunk circumference of more than 55 inches measured 4_ feet above the average surface, except as may be permitted for development under the regulation of the LCP. | ||||||||||||||||||
The predominant vegetation on the site is northern coastal shrub and nine significant (over 12 inches in diameter) trees including one olive (16" dbh), one magnolia (16" dbh), one coastal live oak (18" dbh), and six pine trees (14"-44" dbh). The pine trees, which are located between the Highway and the addition, protect the existing visual resource by minimizing existing impacts. The magnolia, olive, and oak trees are proposed for removal as part of the condition of the addition. Replacement trees are required as part of landscaping requirement in Condition No. 15. | ||||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.15 (Coastal Views) prevents development (including buildings, structures, fences, unnatural obstructions, signs, and landscaping) from substantially blocking views to or from coastal roads, roadside rests and vista points, recreation areas, trails, coastal access-ways, and beaches. | ||||||||||||||||||
Please see Section 3.a(2) of this report. | ||||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.16 (Landscaping) requires: (1) use plant materials to integrate the manmade and natural environments and soften the visual impact of new development, and (2) protect existing desirable vegetation, and encourage, where feasible, that new planting be common to the area. | ||||||||||||||||||
Per Condition Number 17 in Attachment A, the applicant is required to submit a landscape plan that shows the replacement of three trees proposed for removal, and to soften the visual impact of the addition as seen from the Cabrillo Highway. | ||||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.18 (Development Design) requires that: | ||||||||||||||||||
(1) |
Development blend with and be subordinate to the environment and the character of the area where located, and be as unobtrusive as possible and not to detract from the natural, open space or visual qualities of the area, including, but not limited to siting, design, layout, size, height, shape, materials, colors, access and landscaping. | |||||||||||||||||
The addition's siting, design and use of colors and materials, to include clear-coated western red cedar siding and gray asphalt or concrete roof shingles, is compatible with the architectural character that is required in this scenic corridor. Staff believes the addition will blend in with the surrounding environment and will not have a significant impact on natural, open space and visual quality of the area. | ||||||||||||||||||
(2) |
Screening to minimize the visibility of the development from scenic roads and other public viewpoints. Screening shall be by vegetation or other materials that are native to the area or blend with the natural environment and character of the site. | |||||||||||||||||
The proposal includes maintaining six significant pine trees that are located between the proposed addition and the highway. In addition, as conditioned, the project will include a landscape plan to screen and soften the visual impact of the addition. | ||||||||||||||||||
(3) |
All non-agricultural development minimize noise, light, dust, odors and other interference with persons and property off the development site. The proposal, as conditioned, will limit the noise levels produced by construction and reduce dust emissions and odors during the project. | |||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.19 (Colors and Materials) requires to: (1) employ colors and materials in new development, which blend, rather than contrast, with the surrounding physical conditions of the site; and (2) prohibit highly reflective surfaces and colors except those of solar energy devices. | ||||||||||||||||||
The proposal has been designed with exterior materials, compatible with the architectural character that is required in this scenic corridor, and exterior lighting is to be limited to the minimum necessary for safety, to have least visual effect. | ||||||||||||||||||
Policy 8.22 (Utilities in State Scenic Corridors) requires to install new distribution lines underground. The proposal, as conditioned, will require utility lines to be installed underground. | ||||||||||||||||||
4. |
Architectural Review for Development in State Scenic Corridor | |||||||||||||||||
All new development located within and visible from a State Scenic Corridor (Cabrillo Highway) requires architectural review. The standards for architectural review are those previously discussed in the section of report regarding General Plan and LCP conformance. | ||||||||||||||||||
Staff believes the proposed addition will not create significant visual impacts along Cabrillo Highway, and as seen from Bean Hollow Road and adjacent residents. The existing house is set back 378 feet from the Highway and the proposed addition will reduce that distance by 8 feet to 370 feet, and front decks by 50 feet to 328 feet. The addition's width and height will make the structure more visible from the Highway. However, staff believes the proposed location of the bulk of the addition to the rear of the existing house will reduce the visual impact as seen from Cabrillo Highway, Bean Hollow Road, and nearby residences. In addition, the proposal has been designed with exterior materials and colors, as discussed in Section 3 of this report, to ensure compatibility with the architectural character that is preferred in this scenic corridor. Exterior lighting is to be limited to the minimum necessary for safety. | ||||||||||||||||||
5. |
Recommendation of Agricultural Advisory Committee | |||||||||||||||||
The Agricultural Advisory Committee reviewed this application on March 13, 2000, and recommended approval of the project on the condition that the applicant record a deed restriction, in accordance with LCP Policy 5.15, to mitigate potential land use conflicts with adjacent agricultural operations to the satisfaction of County Counsel and Planning Director. This condition is included as a condition of approval in Attachment A. | ||||||||||||||||||
D. |
OTHER COMMENTS | |||||||||||||||||
Staff also received a letter from Catherine Swatland of San Gregorio Environmental Resource Center on August 23, 2001, with concerns regarding sensitive habitats, such as California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. This issue was addressed in Section B.4 of this report. The comments are incorporated to this report as Attachment M. | ||||||||||||||||||
E. |
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW | |||||||||||||||||
An Initial Study was completed and a Negative Declaration issued in conformance with CEQA guidelines. The public review began on June 22, 2000 and ended on July 12, 2000. No comments were received. Staff identified four issues that required mitigation to reduce potential impacts. These included geotechnical sensitivity of the site, vegetation, wildlife and sensitive habitats on the site. | ||||||||||||||||||
A biological report, as part of the mitigation measures for the Negative Declaration, was conducted by Thomas Reid Associates on August 18, 2000. The report determined if Tidewater Goby, California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, and Monarch butterfly are located anywhere on the property. The study concluded that the species were not detected and that it is highly unlikely the property would support the species. | ||||||||||||||||||
F. |
REVIEWING AGENCIES | |||||||||||||||||
Department of Public Works | ||||||||||||||||||
Building Inspection Section | ||||||||||||||||||
Environmental Health Division | ||||||||||||||||||
Geotechnical Section | ||||||||||||||||||
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection | ||||||||||||||||||
California Coastal Commission | ||||||||||||||||||
Agricultural Advisory Committee | ||||||||||||||||||
Sonoma State Archaeological Inventory | ||||||||||||||||||
Pescadero Community Council | ||||||||||||||||||
Community for Green Foothills | ||||||||||||||||||
ATTACHMENTS | ||||||||||||||||||
A. |
Recommended Findings and Revised Conditions of Approval | |||||||||||||||||
B. |
Location Map | |||||||||||||||||
C. |
Site Plan and Prime Soils | |||||||||||||||||
D. |
Floor Plan | |||||||||||||||||
E. |
West and North Elevations | |||||||||||||||||
F. |
East and South Elevations | |||||||||||||||||
G. |
New Sewage Disposal System | |||||||||||||||||
H. |
Appeal Application filed December 28, 2000 | |||||||||||||||||
I. |
Property Owners' Legal Representative's Response to the Appeal | |||||||||||||||||
J. |
Applicant's Response to the Appeal | |||||||||||||||||
K. |
Biologist Report | |||||||||||||||||
L. |
Environmental Initial Study | |||||||||||||||||
M. |
Site Design Criteria | |||||||||||||||||
N. |
Coastal Development Permit Checklist | |||||||||||||||||
O. |
San Gregorio Environmental Resource Center Comments | |||||||||||||||||
