20020115_m

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

Date:

December 31, 2001

Set Time:

9:00 a.m.

Hearing Date:

January 15, 2002

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, a Resource Management-Coastal Zone Permit and a Stable Permit, pursuant to Sections 6328.4, 6903, and 7700 of the San Mateo Zoning Regulations, to allow legalization of a 3-horse stable, tractor shed, agricultural barn, replacement of one 8,000-gallon water tank with two 5,000-gallon water tanks, and a mobilehome as an affordable housing unit. The project is located at 1589 Higgins Canyon Road in the unincorporated Half Moon Bay area of the County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

County File Number:

PLN 1999-00079 (Oscar Braun)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Coastal Development Permit, Resource Management-Coastal Zone Permit, and Stable Permit, County File No. PLN 1999-00079, by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval identified in Attachment A of this report.

PROPOSAL

The project involves legalization of a 3-horse stable, a tractor shed, an agricultural barn, replacement of one 8,000-gallon water tank with two 5,000-gallon water tanks and designation of a mobilehome as an affordable housing unit. The 1,440 sq. ft. stable structure consists of a tack room, three horse stalls and a bathroom and is located approximately 125 feet north of the existing residence. The 12-foot high stable structure consists of composition shingle roof and "rustic" redwood exterior walls. Two 8-foot high water tanks have been relocated approximately 200 feet southeast of the main residence. The tractor shed, agricultural barn and mobilehome are clustered in the eastern portion of the parcel. The 1,200 sq. ft., single-story mobilehome is composed of composition roof with aluminum siding. The 2,460 sq. ft. tractor shed and 200 sq. ft. agricultural barn are composed of metal roofs with plywood siding.

The project is located at 1589 Higgins Canyon Road and is within the Higgins-Purisima County Scenic Corridor.

BACKGROUND

Report Prepared By: Miroo Desai Brewer, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1853

Applicant/Owner: Oscar Braun

Appellants: Lennie Roberts and Cynthia Giovanni

Location: 1589 Higgins Canyon Road, unincorporated Half Moon Bay

APN(s): 064-370-240

Parcel Size: 70 acres

Existing Zoning: RM-CZ/CD (Resource Management-Coastal Zone/Coastal District)

General Plan Designation: General Open Space

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

Existing Land Use: Single-family residence, stable, tractor shed, agricultural barn, mobilehome

Flood Zone: Zone C (Area of Minimal Flooding)

Environmental Evaluation: Negative Declaration issued with a public review from October 2, 2001 to October 22, 2001.

Setting: The project property is located approximately 1 1/2 miles east from Highway 1 on Higgins Canyon Road and consists of gently rolling hills. The vegetation consists primarily of shrub and few trees. There are no prime soils or water bodies on the property. The property is developed with a single-family residence, in addition to structures proposed to be legalized. Access to the property is via a 50-foot wide easement running from Higgins Canyon Road through parcel number 064-370-160.

Chronology:

Date

Action

June 4, 1991

BOS approval for Certificate of Compliance Type B; Coastal Development Permit, Resource Management Permit, and Grading Permit to allow 1,500 linear feet of access road and 1,900 linear feet of driveway and 7,500 sq. ft. single-family residence.

February 27, 1998

Complaint received.

March 4, 1998

Inspection of the property.

March 12, 1998

Notice of Code Violation prepared, postmark March 17, 1998. Owner requested to apply for applicable permits for barn, a second residential unit, stable permits, and agricultural buildings (30-day notice).

April 23, 1998

Final Notice of Violation mailed.

July 17, 1998

Sheriff attempted to serve Final Notice of Violation. The owner refused to allow Sheriff through the gate.

July 20, 1998

Final Notice sent via fax to the owner.

September 15, 1998

Citation for nuisance issued to and signed by Mr. Braun.

December 3, 1998

Application received for legalization of stable, tractor shed, agricultural barn and mobilehome as farm labor housing unit.

December 17, 1998

Application determined incomplete and letter sent to applicant requesting outstanding items necessary to complete application.

January 13, 1999

Second letter of incomplete requesting outstanding items sent.

March 9, 1999

Applicant submitted revised site plan and elevations of some of the structures.

April 21, 1999

Planning Division sent out status letter to applicant requesting items still needed to process the application.

June 9, 1999

Applicant submitted requested survey information.

July 26, 1999

Planning Division sent out a status letter to applicant requesting outstanding items still needed to process application.

November 1, 1999

Superior Court hearing (Case No. C941588). Judge ruled guilty and imposed fine of $271.

October 17, 2000

Letter of Complete Application sent to the applicant.

October 19, 2000

Application package sent to the Certificate of Need for Farm Labor Housing Committee to review application for farm labor housing unit. Certificate of Need Committee found insufficient information submitted to justify a farm labor housing unit.

November 14, 2000

Notice of Violation sent to applicant regarding replacement of water tanks without permits.

June 18, 2001

Status letter sent to applicant requesting additional information regarding farm-related activities conducted on site or conducted by person residing in farm labor unit.

July 5, 2001

Application package sent to Certificate of Need for Farm Labor Housing Committee with information provided by the applicant and information researched by the planner regarding farm labor unit.

August 1, 2001

Certificate of Need Committee convened. The Committee unable to recommend approval for the farm labor unit and recommended that the applicant revise application and request designation of mobile unit as an affordable housing unit.

August 10, 2001

Applicant revised application and requested designation of mobile unit as an affordable housing unit.

September 11, 2001

A copy of Initial Study prepared for the project sent to applicant with request for concurrence to mitigation measures.

September 13, 2001

Applicant signed letter of concurrence to mitigation measures but wrote a note saying that "Applicant does not concur with Mitigation Measures." Please see copy (Attachment H) of applicant's response to request for concurrence to mitigation measures.

October 2, 2001

Negative Declaration and Initial Study published and public review period begins.

October 22, 2001

Negative Declaration public review period over. Comments received from three individuals.

November 14, 2001

Planning Commission public hearing. During the public hearing, the applicant removed his objection to mitigation measures identified in the initial study and unambiguously agreed to them.

December 4, 2001

Appeals filed by Lennie Roberts and Cynthia Giovanni.

January 15, 2002

Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

On November 14, 2001, the Planning Commission considered the project and unanimously approved the project. At the time of the hearing, the applicant had signed the letter of concurrence to mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration with an attached note saying that the applicant does not concur with the mitigation measures. During the hearing, the applicant removed his objection and unambiguously agreed to the mitigation measures. Prior to the motion to approve the project, a motion to continue the project to allow the applicant to pay outstanding fees was made. This motion, however, did not carry on a 3-2 vote.

The Planning Commission on consideration of staff analysis and the testimony presented, approved the project and made all the relevant findings. This decision has been appealed separately by Lennie Roberts and Cynthia Giovanni. Their letters of appeal have been included in Attachment K. Please see Section E of the staff report for discussion of key issues of the appeal.

KEY ISSUES

Conformance with General Plan

Staff has determined that the project complies with all applicable General Plan Policies, with specific discussion of the following:

Vegetative, Water, Fish and Wildlife Resources

The project complies with Policy 1.23 (Regulate Location, Density and Design of Development) and Policy 1.26 (Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources), which together regulate development to minimize significant adverse impacts to vegetative, water, fish and wildlife resources. The stable is clustered near the main residence and other buildings are clustered within a compact area on the property that does not contain sensitive habitats or water bodies.

Visual Quality

The subject property is located within Higgins-Purisima County Scenic Corridor. Although the property is technically not within the Cabrillo State Scenic Corridor, a portion of the property is visible from the Cabrillo Highway. Policy 4.21 (Scenic Corridors) requires the minimization of adverse visual impacts and protecting and enhancing the visual quality of scenic corridors by managing the location and appearance of structural development. The mobilehome unit, tractor shed and the agricultural barn are not visible from either Higgins-Purisima Scenic Corridor and Highway 1. The two 5,000-gallon water tanks are also not visible from the scenic corridors. These two water tanks will replace an existing 8,000-gallon tank that will be removed. The stable structure is partially visible for approximate 0.7 miles on Higgins Canyon Road and is also partially visible from Highway 1. However, given the distance (approximately 1.5 miles from Highway 1), staff believes the visual impacts of the stable are not significant.

Water Supply

There is an existing, permitted well located near the mobilehome that will serve the proposed affordable housing unit as well as the stable structure. The Environmental Health Division has reviewed the project and is satisfied with the project meeting the water requirements for the mobilehome.

Wastewater Systems

Policies 11.10 through 11.14 (Wastewater Systems in Rural Areas) regulate wastewater management in rural areas. There is an existing septic system that serves the mobilehome. The project is conditioned to require legalization of the septic system to ensure that it is in compliance with all the current applicable regulations governing septic systems. The stable structure, with a bathroom, near the main residence will be connected to the existing, permitted septic system for the house.

Housing Policies

The proposed designation of affordable housing unit is conditioned in this report to comply with required rent levels and tenant income levels in compliance with General Plan Policy 14.6 (Definition of Affordable Housing).

Conformance with Local Coastal Program (LCP)

The proposed project is in conformance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Staff has completed a LCP checklist and the following LCP components are relevant to this project:

Housing

Policy 3.1 (Sufficient Housing Opportunities) promotes through both public and private efforts, the protection and, where feasible, the provision of housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income who reside, work or can be expected to work in the Coastal Zone. The project proposal is to legalize a mobilehome as an affordable housing unit. Approval for this permit will be conditioned to maintain required rent and tenant income levels for the residence. Policy 3.23 (Density Bonus for Affordable Housing in Rural Areas) allows 30 units of affordable housing in rural areas of the South Coast. At this time, number of existing affordable units in the South Coast does not exceed 30.

Policy 3.13 (Maintenance of Community Character) requires that new development providing significant housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons contribute to maintaining a sense of community character by being of compatible scale, size and design. This policy limits the height to two stories to mitigate the impact of this development on the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed affordable housing unit is a 1,200 sq. ft. single-story structure.

Visual Resources

Policy 8.5.a (Location of Development) requires that new development be located on a portion of a parcel where the development (1) is least visible from 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 preserves the visual and open space qualities of the parcel overall. The project site is located within the Higgins Canyon County Scenic Corridor. Although the property is technically not within the Cabrillo State Scenic Corridor, a portion of the property is visible from Cabrillo Highway.

The mobilehome unit, tractor shed and the agricultural barn are not visible from either Higgins-Purisima Scenic Corridor or Highway 1. The two 5,000-gallon water tanks are also not visible from the scenic corridors. These two water tanks will replace an existing 8,000-gallon tank that will be removed. The stable structure is partially visible for approximate 0.7 miles on Higgins Canyon Road and is also partially visible from Highway 1. However, given the distance (approximately 1.5 miles from Highway 1), staff believes the visual impacts of the stable, composed of composition shingle roof and redwood siding, are not significant.

Policy 8.23 (Utilities in County Scenic Corridors) requires that any new utility lines be installed underground. Staff has conditioned the project to require that any new utility lines required for the project be installed underground.

Conformance with Zoning Regulations

The proposed area of development complies with all development restrictions as required in the Resource Management-Coastal Zone (RM-CZ) District:

Development Standards

In this zoning district, setback restrictions include 50 feet from front property line and 20 feet from all other property lines. The project parcel is a 70-acre site and all structures proposed for legalization are well over 100 feet from all property lines. The height of the structures also is well under the allowed maximum of 36 feet.

The requirements of the RM-CZ Zoning District necessitate a review of the proposal against criteria outlined in Chapter 36A.2 of the County Zoning Regulations. The primary criteria applicable to this project are Site Design and Primary Scenic Resources Area Criteria. The project has been found to conform to these criteria as discussed below.

Primary Scenic Resources Areas Criteria

Public views within and from scenic corridors shall be protected and enhanced, and development shall not be allowed to significantly obscure, detract from, or negatively affect the quality of these views. Vegetative screening or setbacks may be used to mitigate such impacts. Colors and plant materials shall be selected as necessary to minimize visual impacts of development upon scenic corridors.

The project site is located within the Higgins Canyon County Scenic Corridor. Although the property is technically not within the Cabrillo State Scenic Corridor, a portion of the property is visible from Cabrillo Highway.

Conformance with Requirements for Stable Permit

The permit application is also for the legalization of a private stable to allow three horses on a 70-acre parcel. The stable application is in compliance with the requirements of the Stable Ordinance. The stable to house three horses meets the requirements for distance from the residence on the same parcel, distance from residences on adjacent parcels, distance from side property line, and distance from street or front property line. There are three 288 sq. ft. paddocks adjacent to the stable structure. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit a manure management plan that provides information on storage and disposal of manure.

Conformance with Affordable Housing Policies

The proposal to designate an existing living unit on the project site as an affordable housing unit is consistent with the policy requirements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. Local Coastal Program Policy 3.1 (Sufficient Housing Opportunities) encourages the provision of affordable housing in the Coastal Zone. Affordable housing is defined in the General Plan as housing with a contract price or rent which is affordable by very low, low or moderate income households. The project also conforms with Local Coastal Program Policy 3.23 (Density Bonus for Affordable Housing in Rural Areas) which states that in addition to the number of density credits permitted by zoning regulations, allow 30 dwelling units of affordable housing to be built and land divided for this purpose in rural areas of the South Coast. Staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the applicant enter into an agreement with the Board of Supervisors executing income and rent controls for this unit.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An Initial Study was completed and a Negative Declaration issued in conformance with CEQA guidelines. The applicant signed the letter of concurrence to mitigation measures but attached a note stating that "The applicant does not concur to mitigation measures." Please see a copy of applicant's response for full language. On County Counsel's advice, the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration were published and the public review period began on October 2, 2001, and ran through October 22, 2001. During the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant agreed to the mitigation measure identified in the Initial Study.

During the public review period of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, comments were received from Lennie Roberts, Committee for Green Foothills, Cynthia Giovanni and Steven Karlin (copies of their comments are included as Attachment I). Their comments and staff's response is summarized below. The comments are in bold followed by staff response.

Comments By Lennie Roberts

The project description is incomplete, as it does not match items enumerated in a Press Release sent to various newspapers on April 19, 2001 by Mr. Braun. The following discrepancies are noted between the April 2001 Press Release with the 1991 Coastal Development Permit:

April 2001 Press Release

1991 CDP

Residence

10,000 sq. ft.

7,500 sq. ft. (including 979 sq. ft. garage)

Access Road

2 miles

3,400 feet

Security Gate

Included

Not part of permit

Sprint PCS Site

Included

Not part of permit

Tractor/Storage Shed

Included

Not part of permit

Farm Labor Housing Unit

Included

Not part of permit

Horse Stable/Full Bathroom

Included

Not part of permit

Horse Arena

Included

Not part of permit

Helicopter Pad

Included

Not part of permit

10,000 gallon Water Tank

Included

Not part of permit

The current application includes legalization of tractor/storage shed, horse stable that includes a structure with three horse stalls, a tack room and a bathroom and a corral area of approximately 864 sq. ft. One of the recommended conditions of approval includes that the applicant obtain a building permit for the security gate. The project includes legalization of replacement of an 8,000-gallon water tank with two 5,000-gallon water tanks. The 8,000-gallon water tank has been conditioned to be removed. The applicant had initially applied for a farm labor housing unit to legalize the existing mobilehome. However, staff was not in a position to make the required findings and recommended that the applicant revise his application and designate the mobilehome as an affordable housing unit. Staff has received an application for applicable permits for a Sprint PCS site (County File No. PLN 2000-00880). This application is currently under review.

Our records, including site visits by staff, do not indicate any other elements that have not been in included in either Coastal Development Permit issued in 1991 or permits under consideration in this application.

The Initial Study states that the agricultural barn is not visible from the scenic corridor. The barn is not only visible from the scenic corridor; it also breaks the ridgeline as seen from Highway 1, in violation of LCP Policy 8.7.

The agricultural barn clustered with the tractor shed and the mobilehome are located on the eastern portion of the parcel approximately 250 feet from the existing main residence. These structures are not visible from Highway 1 or Higgins-Purisima Road. The two existing 5,000-gallon tanks are also not visible from scenic corridors. The existing 8,000-gallon tank, replaced by the 8,000-gallon tank, is visible and is conditioned to be removed from the property. The stable structure located adjacent to the main residence as indicated in the Initial Study is partially visible from the Highway 1 and Higgins-Purisima Road.

What septic system exists for the wastewater from the bathroom and the horse wash station? Do the water well(s) have sufficient production and adequate water quality to serve the adequate uses?

The wastewater from the stable structure will be handled by the existing septic system for the main residence. The Environmental Health Division has reviewed the application and is satisfied that the existing water source on the property is suitable to serve the need for the proposed uses.

Are there additional requirements for fire access such as wider paved area, turnouts, or emergency vehicle access routes as the existing driveway will now serve an additional housing unit?

The application was reviewed by the Half Moon Bay Fire District. Their conditions of approval have been included in Attachment A of this staff report. Please see Conditions 18 to 26.

"We believe that the project description is incomplete and therefore the Initial Study needs to be revised to include all elements of development that were not part of the Coastal Development Permit issued in 1991." The Initial Study should include a map of the site showing the location of all structures including location of wells and septic systems.

The discrepancies between elements outlined in the Press Release by the applicant and the elements approved under Coastal Development Permit have been discussed above. The Initial Study did not include a site plan. Site plans, floor plans and elevations solicited by staff and submitted by the applicant over a period of two years have been included in the staff report. In the report prepared for the Planning Commission, staff stated that if the Commission determines that the Initial Study needs to be revised and re-circulated, then it can direct staff to do so. The Planning Commission certified the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration.

Comments from Cynthia Giovanni

Please note that some of the comments made by Ms. Giovanni are similar to those of Lennie Roberts. The common areas of concerns that have been addressed above in Section C.1 have not been repeated below.

"How much water storage is separately required for fire suppression?"

Water storage facilities must be installed with a minimum capacity of 4,000 gallons plus domestic use of 150 gallons per person per day. Please see Half Moon Bay Fire District's recommended conditions of approval in Attachment A.

"Has there been an adequate environmental health inspection and tests to assure septic system safety for both the proposed affordable housing unit and proposed 3-horse stable?"

One of the recommended conditions of approval includes legalization of the septic system serving the affordable housing unit. This would include standard tests required for installation of any new septic system by the Environmental Health Division.

"Have the CDP clustering provisions been followed?"

Local Coastal Program, Agriculture Component, Policy 5.51 (Mitigation of Land Use Conflicts) requires clustering of all non-agricultural development in locations most protective of existing or potential agricultural uses. The project parcel is in the Resource Management-Coastal Zone Zoning District and not in the Planned Agricultural District. The stable structure is clustered to the existing main residence while the tractor, agricultural barn and the mobile unit are clustered in the eastern portion of the parcel.

"What violations and enforcement actions have been previously been associated with Mr. Braun, his property and elements of this request and Initial Study?"

Please see the "Chronology" section of this staff report.

"What justifies Mr. Braun's structure as an affordable unit, and what assurance mechanism is in place to confirm an annual review or audit so it will not quietly become market rate?"

Local Coastal Program allows 30 dwelling units of affordable housing to be built in rural areas of the South Coast. As the number of existing affordable housing units does not exceed 30, Mr. Braun can apply to designate the mobilehome as an affordable unit. Staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the applicant enter into an agreement with the Board of Supervisors and record a deed restriction binding current and future property owners to comply with income and rent controls for affordable housing units in the Coastal Zone. Please see Recommended Conditions of Approval 5 and 6 in Attachment A.

"Does the CDP allow for the many clubs and organizations Mr. Braun headquarters and operates on site?"

Section 6905 of the Resource Management-Coastal Zone Zoning District permits home occupations. Home occupations are defined as the following: "Customary, incidental occupations conducted within a dwelling, provided that no retail business of any sort is involved; no stock in trade is kept or commodity sold, except for sale of commodities made on premises; no person not a resident of the premises is employed; an area not larger than one-fourth (1/4) of the floor area of the ground floor of the dwelling is devoted to such home occupation; provided, however, that such home occupation shall not require internal or external alterations, or involve construction features, or use of equipment not customary in dwellings; that the entrance to the space devoted to such occupation be from within the building and that no display pertaining to such occupation be visible from the street; and provided, further, that only one sign or name plate, not exceeding 2 sq. ft. in area and containing the name and occupation only, shall be permitted in connection with each such home occupation, which sign or name plate shall be attached flat to the dwelling and shall not be illuminated."

"Until the Initial Study fully evaluates the above, I encourage the County to continue Mr. Braun's applications. Further I request the above issues be adequately addressed in a revised and re-circulated Initial Study."

In the report prepared for the Planning Commission, staff stated that if the Commission determines that the Initial Study needs to be revised and re-circulated, then it can direct staff to do so. The Planning Commission certified the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration.

Comments by Steven Karlin

Please note that some of the comments made by Mr. Karlin are similar to those of Lennie Roberts and Cynthia Giovanni. The common area of concerns that have been addressed above in Sections C.1 and C.2 have not been repeated below.

"Does Mr. Braun have the required legal access across the neighbor's property for the additional `affordable housing' residence?"

Recorded Document Number 48190.R.583 (77262-X) provides a 50-foot wide ingress, egress and roadway easement for the project parcel. The easement does not outline any restrictions to the number of housing units that it may serve on the project parcel.

"Are there other affordable units in the rural areas of San Mateo County?"

Yes.

PERMIT AND VIOLATION FEES

At the time of application, the applicable permit fees were: $3,720 ($1,300 for Coastal Development Permit (public hearing), $833 for Initial Study and Negative Declaration, $214 for Resource Management Permit, $1,323 for Stable Permit, $50 for public noticing. Per Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 61978 adopted on June 2, 1998, the fees for obtaining permits required to correct a violation are double the fees that would be otherwise charged. Therefore, the fees for this application are $7,440. No fees were paid by the owner at the time of application. Staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that the applicant pay $7,440 prior to the application for building permit.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

The main issues of this appeal are indicated below in bold type followed by staff's response. Complete copies of the appeal applications are included as Attachment K. The applicant has responded to the appeal in writing and has been included as Attachment L.

Main Issues Presented by Lennie Roberts, Committee for Green Foothills

The CDP should not be granted until the outstanding application violation/investigation fees are paid.

Timing of payment of fees was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. A motion to continue the item so that fees could be paid prior to the issuance of the Coastal Development Permit was made but was not carried by a 3-2 vote. The process of legalization of structures is not complete until a building permit for the structures has been issued and finalized. An approval of Coastal Development Permit is the first step in the process of legalization. At this time, the project has been conditioned such that payment of fees is required prior to the application of any building permit. Alternatively, the Board could defer action until the fees are paid.

The project plans do not show the entire site nor do they show all elements of the project. A revised site plan, indicating all elements of the project, to scale, should be required to be submitted for the County's review and in-field confirmation.

Inadequacy of the site plan was also discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. It was acknowledged that a better site plan would be helpful. If the Board of Supervisors determines that a revised site plan is necessary, it can direct the applicant to provide one.

There are serious discrepancies between the house size and driveway length quoted in the Press Release and that approved by the 1991 permits. "Mr. Braun refused to answer a question from the Planning Commission as to whether the house was built according to the plans approved by the County. The CDP should not be granted until the County can verify that the house, as approved by the County in 1991, was built according to the approved plans.

The issue of discrepancy between house size quoted in the Press Release and that approved by the County was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Among other things, it was mentioned that in order for the County to verify the house size, the applicant would have to submit as-built plans from an architect or the County would have to obtain a warrant in order to enter the property to confirm and verify the house size. It is correct that the applicant did not make an unambiguous statement that stated that the house was built according to plans approved by the County.

The adequacy of the on-site water well to serve the affordable housing unit needs to be verified. In response to our questions as to the adequacy of the water well to serve the proposed new uses, staff replied that "the Environmental Health Division has reviewed the application and is satisfied that the existing water source on the property is suitable to serve the need for the proposed uses." This response is unclear as to whether there has been any current verification of the domestic well's production (during dry summer months) and its water quality, or whether this statement was based upon the testing at the time the well was drilled. Additionally, Mr. Braun's Press Release includes reference to an agricultural well on the property. Is this well being used for domestic purposes? If so, does it meet water quality standards? The CDP should not be granted until the adequacy of the well(s) to serve the proposed affordable housing unit is determined.

The Environmental Health Division made a determination of adequacy of water based on information obtained at the time the well was drilled. As a matter of policy, the Environmental Health Division does not require post-drilling testing of well water quantity and quality. The Environmental Health Division has record of only one permitted well on the applicant's property.

We have discovered in the file that the June 11, 2001, County document entitled Conditions Associated with Case No. PLN 1999-00079 states "upon review of the submitted plans, it was noted that the setback requirement between the well and septic system did not meet the 100 feet. At the building application stage, the applicant will need to relocate the existing septic system to meet current standards. The existing septic system must be abandoned (sic) with required permits meeting Environmental Health standards." The above findings of Environmental Health were not discussed in the staff report. Condition 15 of the CDP requires that legalization of the septic system shall occur prior to the issuance of the building permit, and that the septic system shall meet current setback requirements. This condition should not be left to the building permit stage, but should be required prior to the issuance of the CDP. Otherwise, the findings that the project meets all policies of the General Plan and the LCP cannot be made.

The above County document referenced by the appellant is a computer printout of conditions of approval. This was subsequently revised by the Environmental Health Division to make a minor change in the language of the condition regarding legalization of the septic system. Condition 15 in the staff report requiring legalization of the septic system that meets current setback standards addresses the concern that the existing setback may not meet current standards. Fulfillment of septic system requirements are, by routine, made conditions of approval at the time of issuance of planning permits. The finding that is made is that the proposed project as conditioned complies with the applicable County policies.

We request that Condition 1 be amended to specifically state that no helicopter land area is permitted.

Staff has revised the condition to accommodate the above request.

Main Issues Presented by Cynthia Giovanni

Mr. Braun states in his own Press Release that he has two water wells. Only one has been noted on the site plan. Have both wells been certified?

Environmental Health Division has record of one permitted well on applicant's property.

"Mr. Braun states that the house is 10,000 sq. ft., original 1991 CDP was approved for 7,500 sq. ft. including 979 sq. ft. of garage, note his statement with two 2-car garages (sic). I request that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Assessor to determine at what rate and level this individual is being taxed; if it is true and he has not been assessed on this additional square footage, I request that the County charge the 10 years back taxes on a supplemental tax bill (sic)."

Board would first need to direct County staff to take appropriate steps to determine whether the existing house on the applicant's property is indeed bigger than what was approved under past County permits.

"Stable does not comply with LCP Policies 8.5 and 8.7."

LCP Policies 8.5 and 8.7 refer to the visual elements of the Local Coastal Program regarding requiring new development to be least visible from the State and County Scenic Corridors and that new development should not break ridgelines or skylines. LCP policies are discussed in Section B.2 of the staff report. The Planning Commission conducted a site visit prior the public hearing and approved the project.

"Mr. Braun claims the stable is served by the same septic system as the house; however, the stable is significantly down gradient from the house and effluent cannot flow uphill, additional investigation (sic)."

From the application materials submitted, the Planning Division and the Environmental Health Division are not in a position to assess whether, as suggested, there is a potential problem with the effluent flow. Staff was willing to investigate and requested owner's permission to enter project site. The owner declined to grant permission.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

Department of Public Works - Roads

Building Inspection Section

Environmental Health Division

Half Moon Bay Fire District

ATTACHMENTS

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

Location Map and Vicinity Map

Site Plan

D(i).

Stable Floor Plan

D(ii).

Elevations for Stable (East and West)

D(iii).

Elevations for Stable (Front and Rear)

Floor Plan and Elevations for Affordable Housing Unit

F(i).

Floor Plan and Elevations for Tractor Shed

F(ii).

Elevations for Tractor Shed and Floor Plan and Elevations for Agricultural Barn

Initial Study and Negative Declaration

Applicant's Response to Request for Concurrence to Mitigation Measures

Comments Received on the Initial Study

LCP Checklist

Copies of Letters of Appeal

Applicant's Response to Appeal

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit or Project File Number: PLN 1999-00079

Hearing Date: January 15, 2002

Prepared By: Miroo Desai Brewer

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Negative Declaration, Find:

That the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of San Mateo County.

That the Negative Declaration is complete, correct and adequate, and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable State and County guidelines.

That, on the basis of the Initial Study, comments received hereto, and testimony presented and considered at the public hearing, there is no substantial evidence that the project, if subject to the mitigation measures contained in the Negative Declaration, will have a significant effect on the environment.

That the mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration, agreed to by the applicant, placed as conditions on the project, and identified as part of this public hearing, have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in conformance with California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

For the Coastal Development Permit, Find:

That the project, as described in the application and accompanying materials required by Section 6328.7 and as conditioned in accordance with Section 6328.14, conforms with the plans, policies, requirements, and standards of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program.

That the project conforms to the specific findings required by the policies of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program.

For the Resource Management Permit, Find:

That this project has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with the Development Review Criteria as stipulated in Chapter 36 of the Zoning Regulations.

For Stable Permit, Find:

That the stable permit application is in compliance with the requirements of Section 7700.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

This approval applies only to the proposal as described in this report and plans dated August 2000. Minor adjustments to the project in the course of applying for building permits may be approved by the Planning Director if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval. This approval does not include approval for a helicopter landing pad.

The applicant shall obtain a building permit for each of the following: stable, tractor shed, agricultural barn, mobilehome and security gate with telephone access system.

The applicant shall remove the 8,000-gallon water tank prior to issuance of building permits.

Prior to the issuance of any building permit and in accordance with the Local Coastal Program, the applicant shall execute an agreement and/or appropriate instrument with the County Board of Supervisors, and record a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, binding current and future owners to comply with income and rent controls for affordable housing units in the Coastal Zone.

Income verifications of the tenant shall be made available to the County upon demand.

These permits shall be valid for one year from the date of approval. Any extension of these permits shall require submittal of a request for permit extension and payment of applicable extension fees, no less than thirty (30) days prior to expiration.

Violation fees in the amount of $7,440 shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to any application of a building permit.

Stable Permit Conditions

This stable permit shall be valid for one year from the date of approval. The applicant shall apply for annual renewal by administrative review and inspection by November each year. Failure to renew this permit shall result in revocation proceedings being scheduled before the Planning Commission.

Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a manure management plan that indicates proposed methods of manure storage and disposal.

10.

The applicant shall adhere to the Stable Ordinance, Section 7700.

11.

This private stable permit is for a maximum of three horses kept on the property at any one time. Any additional horses shall require an amendment to this permit and a public hearing for review and discussion of compliance with applicable stable regulations.

12.

The keeping of any horses on the premises in an offensive, obnoxious or unsanitary condition shall be declared to be a nuisance and shall be unlawful.

Building Inspection Section

13.

The applicant shall apply for a building permit for all structures proposed to be legalized and complete plans shall be submitted for the structures.

14.

Building investigation fees as per Division VI, Section 9041 will be required.

Environmental Health Division

15.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall legalize the existing septic system serving the affordable housing unit. The legalization will require a soil percolation test in the immediate area of the septic system. The applicant will need to submit a plan showing the design of the septic system, location of percolation test pits, location of the affordable unit and its driveway. The septic system shall meet current setback requirements such as 100 feet from any wells.

Department of Public Works

16.

If applicable due to the legalization of structures, 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 the proposed buildings per Ordinance #3277.

17.

The provisions of the San Mateo County Grading Ordinance shall govern all grading on and adjacent to this site.

Half Moon Bay Fire District

18.

Water storage facilities must be installed with a minimum capacity of 4,000 gallons plus domestic use of 150 gallons per person per day.

19.

A minimum 4-inch supply line must be installed from the water storage facility to required standpipe(s) located no closer than 30 feet and no further than 150 feet from each of the buildings on an all-weather surface accessible by fire apparatus. The standpipes must be capable of producing a minimum flow of 200 gallons per minute.

20.

The sleeping area in the affordable housing unit must be equipped with smoke detectors.

21.

Sprinkler systems shall be installed per San Mateo County and Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance, overhead installation and hydrostatic test will be inspected as well as a final operating test. In addition to the external alarm flow bell, an internal audible device will be required in a normally occupied area. Underground fire sprinkler supply lines will be inspected and flushed prior to connection. Underground fire sprinkler or hydrant service shall be left uncovered in the area of thrust blocks for inspection.

22.

The County of San Mateo and Half Moon Fire District Ordinance requires a Class "B" or better roof covering or roof covering assembly.

23.

Building identification shall be conspicuously posted and visible from the street. Temporary address numbers shall be posted prior to combustibles being placed on the site. The letters and numerals for permanent address numbers shall be a minimum of 4-inch stroke for residential and 6-inch stroke for commercial. Such letters and numbers shall be internally illuminated and facing the direction of access. Residences with long driveways will have address numbers at the intersection of the access road and the driveway that are at least 4 inches tall and reflective.

24.

The applicant must have a maintained all-weather surface road for ingress and egress of fire apparatus. This road shall be in place before combustible are brought onto the project site and maintained throughout construction. The Half Moon Bay Fire District and the Uniform Fire Code require a 20-foot minimum width for access roads to structures. Dead end roads greater than 150 feet in length also require a turnaround for fire apparatus. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for the full standard detail and specification. Roads leading to a single residence may be 16 feet wide with the approval of the District. Roads to agricultural buildings must be 12 feet in width.

25.

All-weather surface shall be a minimum of 6 inches of compacted Class II base rock for grades up to and including 5%, oil and screened for grades up to and including 15%, and asphaltic concrete for grades exceeding 15%.

26.

The plans submitted will be checked upon receipt of fees required by the District.