COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

Date:

February 20, 2002

Set Time:

9:15 a.m.

Hearing Date:

March 5, 2002

 

To:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

 

From:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

 

Subject:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to approve a Coastside Design Review Permit and a Coastal Development Permit Exemption to construct a new single-family residence and second unit on a parcel located at the corner of Ninth Street and East Avenue, within the incorporated Montara area of San Mateo County.

 

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Design Review Permit and Coastal Development Permit Exemption, County File Number 2001-00368, by making the required findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in Attachment A.

 

PROPOSAL

The applicant is proposing to construct a new 3-level, 2,483 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached second dwelling unit and to merge the existing two lots to create a 5,617 sq. ft. standard parcel.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

On January 9, 2002, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Director to approve this project.

   

SUMMARY

On January 29, 2001, a new appellant, Jim Unger, filed an appeal to the Board of Supervisors. The original appellants, Chuck Kozak and Karen Wilson, had concerns that the tall, unbroken, building facades were not appropriate, and that the location of the project is on a ridgetop. Both Jim Unger and the previous appellants share the opinion that the proposed structure is out of scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood, and the project's parking arrangement was not addressed fully. The Planning Commission's denial of the initial appeal held that the design of the project is not out of scale or character of the surrounding neighborhood and that both the main house and second unit comply with the required parking regulations. While the Planning Commission's decision has already dealt with those issues, the present appellant has the following additional concerns: (1) historical use of the property and its effect on the neighborhood were not considered, and (2) previous problems with lot divisions, building permits and surveys were ignored.

   

1.

Historical Use of Property. The previous auto-related home use on the property has since been removed and has no bearing to the current application.

   

2.

Previous Lot Divisions, Building Permits and Surveys. While there was a previous lot line adjustment application submittal, it was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant, and staff is not aware of any lot division requests or other problems around surveys.

   

AWG:kcd - AWGM0238_WKU.DOC