COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

Date:

May 23, 2003

   

Set Time:

10:45 a.m.

   

Hearing Date:

June 10, 2003

 
 

To:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

 

From:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

 

Subject:

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Design Review, pursuant to Sections 6133.3.b(1)(a), 6328.5, and 6565.7, respectively, of the County Zoning Regulations, to allow the construction of a new 1,975 sq. ft. single-family residence, with an additional 193 sq. ft. of deck space, on a 4,400 sq. ft. non-conforming parcel, located at 198 Coronado Avenue in the unincorporated Miramar area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

 
 

County File Number:

PLN 2000-00676 (Hodge)

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Design Review, County File Number PLN 2000-00676, by making the finding listed in Attachment A of this report.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The applicants are proposing to develop a 4,400 sq. ft. parcel with a new 1,975 sq. ft. single-family residence, of which 1,397 sq. ft. is living space, 378 sq. ft. is garage space, and 200 sq. ft. is unfinished storage space. The proposed residence is three stories with the lower story encompassing only the garage and storage space, while the top two stories are living space. The height of the proposed structure is 27 feet. Zoning Regulations for this district require a minimum parcel size of 10,000 sq. ft. and a minimum parcel width of 50 feet. The project parcel is less than 5,000 sq. ft. and is 40 feet wide. A use permit is required to develop the property because it does not meet minimum parcel size requirements for the zoning district.

BACKGROUND

 

Report Prepared By: China Osborn, Project Planner, Telephone 650/599-7217

 

Owners/Applicants: David and Hi-Jin Hodge

 

Appellants: David and Hi-Jin Hodge

 

Location: 198 Coronado Avenue, south side of street between Mirada Road and Alameda Avenue

 

APN: 048-013-580

 

Parcel Size: 4,400 sq. ft.

 

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-94/DR/CD (Single-Family Residential/10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size/Design Review/Coastal Development)

 

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (2.4 - 6.0 dwelling units/acre)

 

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

 

Existing Land Use: Vacant

 

Parcel Legality: Lot 21, Block 7 as part of Shore Acres Subdivision, recorded on December 18, 1905.

 

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Zone Map indicates the parcel is located in Zone V8, area of 100-year coastal flooding with velocity, per Community Panel No. 0603 11 225 C, effective July 5, 1984.

 

Water Supply: Coastside County Water District

 

Sewage Disposal: Granada Sanitation District

 

Environmental Evaluation: Exempt under provisions of CEQA, Section 15303, Class 3, regarding construction of a new single-family residence in an urban area.

 

Setting: The project site is located within the Shore Acres Subdivision in unincorporated Miramar, adjacent to the City of Half Moon Bay. The site is located on the south side of Coronado Avenue, approximately 119 feet east of Mirada Road. The site is relatively flat and existing vegetation consists of native and non-native grasses. There are no trees on the project parcel and there are few trees in the neighborhood in general. The parcel immediately to the west of the project site, along Mirada Road, is developed with the Landis Beach Luxury Inn Bed and Breakfast. The parcel to the immediate south is currently under construction with a new single-family residence. This parcel, located at 111 Cortez Avenue, which is a 4,400 sq. ft. substandard parcel, is being developed with a use permit and Coastal Development Permit (CDP), approved by the Planning Commission on February 28, 2001 and was issued a building permit to begin construction on January 9, 2003. The parcel to the east of the proposal on Coronado, also 4,400 sq. ft., has a pending CDP application to construct a single-family residence that is currently under consideration by the California Coastal Commission. The original use permit and CDP application was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on August 14, 2001, but the CDP was appealed to the Coastal Commission. There are other intermittent single-family residences along Coronado, north and east of the project.

 

Chronology:

 

Date

 

Action

     

January 11, 2000

-

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors adopted an Urgency Ordinance establishing temporary zoning regulations for R-1 Zoning Districts in the Midcoast Area.

     

September 22, 2000

-

David and Hi-Jin Hodge submit their application for a Coastal Development Permit and use permit to develop their parcel with a single-family residence. The proposed project is, therefore, subject to compliance with the regulations under the Urgency Ordinance adopted in January 2000.

     

August 12, 2001

-

California Coastal Commission approves ordinance changes adopted by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, changing the zoning of the project parcel from R-1/S-9 to R-1/S-94.

     

November 7, 2002

-

Zoning Hearing Officer approves project.

     

November 26, 2002

-

Planning Division staff received two letters of appeal of the Zoning Hearing Officer's approval.

     

March 12, 2003

-

Planning Commission considers project, but fails to pass a motion by majority vote.

     

April 9, 2003

-

Planning Commission accepts appeal and denies project.

     

April 15, 2003

-

Owners appeal the decision of Planning Commission.

     

June 10, 2003

-

Board of Supervisors public hearing.

     

DISCUSSION

 

A.

PREVIOUS ACTION

   
 

    The Planning Commission considered the proposed project on March 12, 2003.  After the close of the public hearing on the item, the Planning Commission voted on a motion to grant the appeal of the project and overturn the decision of the Zoning Hearing Officer.  The vote was 2-1; Commissioner Kennedy dissented and Commissioner Wong abstained; Commissioner Silver was absent.  At the time of the vote, County Counsel determined that the motion to uphold the appeal did not carry because there was no majority vote.  After further review of the issue after the Planning Commission Meeting, County Counsel determined that the Commission's action was insufficient to deny the appeal and uphold issuance of a CDP and use permit.  Because the Commission conducts a de novo review of an appeal from a ZHO decision, the Commission was required to approve findings on the permits by a majority vote.   The failure to uphold the appeal would not be  enough. County Counsel therefore recommended that the Planning Commission re-consider the proposed project.

   
 

Upon re-consideration of the proposal, on April 9, 2003, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal and denied the application. The Planning Commission, with a vote of 3-2 (Commissioners Kennedy and Wong dissenting), upheld the appeal and made the finding that: All opportunities to acquire additional contiguous land in order to achieve conformity with the zoning regulations currently in effect have not been investigated and proven to be infeasible. As the required finding for the use permit could not be made by the Planning Commission, the project was denied.

   

B.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

   
 

The Planning Commission denied the appeal because they found that the following required finding could not be made:

   
 

    All opportunities to acquire additional contiguous land in order to achieve conformity with the zoning regulations currently in effect have been investigated and proved to be infeasible.

   
 

The applicants indicated in the original use permit application that all efforts to acquire additional contiguous land had been exhausted. The real estate broker representing the applicants at the time of the purchase of the subject parcel submitted a letter to the Planning Division confirming that none of the adjacent parcels is available to purchase by the applicants.

   
 

The applicants further contend in the letter of appeal (See Attachment H) that there are no opportunities to purchase additional property today. The project parcel is bordered by development on all sides, except to the east. The parcel to the east has not yet been developed, but there is a Coastal Development Permit for a single-family dwelling, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 14, 2001, and is now on appeal to and under consideration by the California Coastal Commission. The applicants maintain that they have tried to reach an agreement with this property owner to purchase this property, but have been unsuccessful.

   
 

The Planning Commission at their April 9, 2003, meeting did not feel that all opportunities to acquire the property to the east had been exhausted. The Planning Commission's vote reflects the discussion of the Commissioners regarding the possibility that the applicants could purchase the adjacent property if the Coastal Commission should deny the development on the neighboring parcel. Because the future of development on the parcel to the east of the project is uncertain at this time, there may be a future opportunity for the applicants to purchase that property. The applicants stated that attempts were made to purchase the adjacent property, but no agreement could be reached. The Planning Commission questioned how vigorously the applicants had pursued purchase of the adjacent property and indicated that written statements are preferable evidence of due diligence than verbal statements alone. Due to the lack of what the Planning Commission considered to be tangible evidence that the applicants indeed exhausted all opportunities to purchase the undeveloped property to the east, the Planning Commission denied the project, on the basis that all the required findings could not be made.

   

C.

KEY ISSUES

   
 

1.

Conformance with General Plan

     
   

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

     
   

a.

Chapter 4 - Visual Quality. The proposal complies with Policy 4.35 (Urban Area Design Concept), which requires that development enhance the visual quality of urban areas. Even though the proposed development is on a substandard parcel, the project has been scaled so as to meet the required setbacks of the zoning district and thereby maintains the visual character of the area. The structure is being designed with a pitched roof, decks, and articulation along the front and rear of the house, which will break up the mass of the building and provide visual relief. The use of natural colors and materials in the design of the house will further incorporate the architecture of the residence into the surrounding neighborhood.

       
   

b.

Chapter 8 - Urban Land Use. The project complies with Policy 8.38 (Regulation of Development in Urban Areas - Height Bulk and Setbacks), which states that the height, bulk and setback requirements should be regulated in order to ensure that the size and scale of the development are compatible with the parcel size. The proposed structure conforms with respect to the required front, side, and rear yard setbacks and lot coverage. The project also conforms to the height requirements for the district and incorporates a style that is articulated and therefore minimizes bulk in shape.

       
   

c.

Chapter 15 - Natural Hazards. The project complies with Policy 15.47.b (Review Criteria for Location of Development in Areas of Special Flood Hazard) regarding structural integrity of development in flood hazard areas. This policy requires that structures are elevated above base flood elevation and that they do not exacerbate the potential flood hazard of surrounding structures. The project is located in Flood Zone V8, and complies with the requirement that all new and substantially improved buildings are elevated to or above the base flood elevation (BFE) of 27 feet above sea level. Additionally, the project incorporates structural features, such as breakaway walls and has an elevated living space such that the proposal complies with this policy and the development requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

       
 

2.

Conformance with Zoning Regulations

     
   

a.

Development Standards

       
     

The subject property, at the time of the application, was zoned R-1/S-9/DR/CD. Ten months prior to the receipt of the application for the proposed project, an interim ordinance imposed new maximum height and floor area ratio (FAR) standards for this zoning district. Because this application was submitted after the interim ordinance was established and before the implementation of new S-94 regulations in August of 2001, the proposed development is measured against the zoning standards for the S-9 combining district, under the interim zoning ordinance. The following table summarizes the project's conformance with the R-1/S-9 Zoning Regulations, Section 6300, and Interim Ordinance No. 3943 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 11, 2000:

     

As previously stated, the S-9 Zoning, was replaced by the S-94 Zoning District after the applicants submitted the application for development to the Planning Division. Although the project is not subject to the standards of the S-94 District, because all future development in the area will be subject to the new standards, staff feels that a discussion of how this project compares to the new development standards is applicable.

       
     

The addition of Section 6300.9.11.10 to the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations established standards for the S-94 Combining District. The new S-94 District changed the requirements for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and facade articulation. Currently in the S-94 District, a parcel the same size as the applicants' would only be allowed 48 percent FAR. The applicants are only proposing, however, an FAR of 45 percent and therefore meet this requirement. The S-94 designation also added a requirement that new development is either limited within the daylight plane envelope or that development make use of facade articulation to add interest to the exterior of the structure. The proposal, as discussed in Section C.1.a of this report, incorporates articulated elements, which diminish any perceived overwhelming mass of the structure and provide design features, which are complimentary to the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff has determined that the project conforms to both the old and new Zoning Regulations established for this neighborhood.

       
   

b.

Design Review Standards

       
     

The proposed project is located within a Design Review District. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that the proposal conforms to the applicable Design Review standards of review as stated in Section 6565.7 of the Zoning Regulations, as discussed below:

       
     

(1)

Proposed structures are designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural vegetation and landforms of the site and to ensure adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties.

         
       

The applicants have chosen an earth-tone color for the exterior color scheme, complimented with light marine shades, which blend with the natural surroundings and other homes in the area. Furthermore, the articulation of the proposed addition allows for adequate light and air to pass between it and the adjacent homes.

         
     

(2)

Structure is located outside flood zones, drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation.

         
       

Although the project is located in a Flood Hazard Area, the proposal meets all requirements for development in the area of flood designation. As the structure is designed to withstand potential flood damage and meets all FEMA requirements, staff believes that the project meets a reasonable review standard and that the development should therefore be allowed.

         
     

(3)

A smooth transition is maintained between development and adjacent open areas through the use of natural landscaping and plant materials, which are native or appropriate to the area.

         
       

A landscape plan is required per Condition of Approval No. 4. The goal of the required plan is to soften the visual impact of the new residence and to provide natural stormwater control. Staff has recommended that native plants are used. Staff has further required the use of pervious materials for the driveway and any other proposed walkway. With proper implementation of the landscape plan, the project will meet this design requirement.

         
     

(4)

Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of trees and vegetative matter at the end of view corridors.

         
       

Views from the surrounding homes are only minimally disturbed, if at all, by the proposed project. The properties west of the parcel, closer to the ocean, are developed and have landscaping, including trees, which already obscure views of the ocean. Looking from east to west, towards the ocean, the proposed project will be nestled in the foreground of these developments and will therefore not offer an additional obstruction to ocean views.

         
     

(5)

Public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands are protected.

         
       

The project will not affect views from public roads or public lands, as no portion of the development encroaches into the public right-of -way. Also, as previously discussed, the parcels to the west of the project are already developed and the project will have no further impact on those ocean views already obstructed by previous development in the area.

         
     

(6)

Varying architectural styles are made compatible through the use of similar materials and colors, which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods.

         
       

The proposed addition will employ the use of natural colors and materials as discussed in Section C.1.a of this report.

         
     

(7)

The design of the structure is appropriate to the use of the property and is in harmony with the shape, size and scale of adjacent building in the community.

         
       

The sloped roof and other design features of the house are complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood as discussed in Section C.1.a and b of this report.

         
     

(8)

Overhead utility lines are placed underground where appropriate to reduce the visual impact in open and scenic areas.

         
       

As required by Condition of Approval No. 11 for the project, all utility lines will be placed underground.

         
 

3.

Conformance with the Local Coastal Program

     
   

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

     
   

a.

Planning and Locating New Development

       
     

Policy 1.24 of the LCP requires protection of archaeological and paleontological resources. Review by the California Archaeological Inventory determined that there was a possibility of archaeological sites on the subject property and, as a result, MRC Consulting completed an archaeological reconnaissance of the site. This independent study found no evidence of archaeological deposits or cultural resources at the site; however, the possibility for subsurface deposits does exist. The study, therefore, recommends mitigation measures to be implemented, if evidence of archaeological resources is found during construction. These recommended measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project and therefore staff believes that the project is in conformance with this policy.

       
   

b.

Wetlands

       
     

The applicants submitted a biological report addressing the issue of wetlands, prepared by an independent consultant for staff's review (see Attachment B). The report submitted by the applicants states that there are no areas on the subject parcel (Lot 21) that meet San Mateo County Local Coastal Program's definition of a wetland, which reads:

       
     

...In San Mateo County, wetlands typically contain the following plants: cordgrass, pickleweed, jaumea, frankenia, marsh mint, tule, bullrush, narrow-leaf cattail, broadleaf cattail, pacific silverweed, salt rush, and bog rush. To qualify, a wetland must contain at least a 50 percent cover of some combination of these plants, unless it is a mudflat.

       
     

The conclusion of the report submitted is that the majority of the parcel's vegetative cover is comprised of non-native plant species and that the soils and hydrologic characteristics of the parcel are not typical of wetlands. Therefore, the project site does not meet the LCP's definition of a wetland. The biological report also included a visual reconnaissance of adjacent parcels and found that

     

the closest wetland plant was found in the central portion of Lot 19, east of the project site.

       
     

To confirm these conclusions, staff requested a copy of the biological report for the parcel to the east of the project (Lot 20), with proposed development currently under consideration by the California Coastal Commission (see Attachment K). This biological report found a small patch of potential wetlands approximately 30 sq. ft. in size at the furthest northeast corner of the parcel. The conclusions of the biologist stated that this area is not a historical wetland, but rather seems to have been artificially created by recent road improvements to Coronado Avenue and residential improvements in the area.

       
     

Policy 7.18 of the LCP establishes buffer zones for development from wetlands. While the normally required setback for development is 100 feet from the outermost line of wetland vegetation, the setback may be reduced to 50 feet if (1) there is no alternative development site and (2) protection of the wetland resource is demonstrated.

       
     

Though there is no conclusive evidence that there is a wetland on Lot 19, as neither report conclusively indicated the presence of wetlands on that lot, if there is a wetland, the proposed house, with a 10-foot setback from the side property line, is 50 feet from the closest edge of Lot 19. Therefore, the proposal is a minimum of 50 feet from any potential wetland on Lot 19. There is, on the other hand, a conclusive study demonstrating that there are wetlands on Lot 20. Therefore, the project must maintain at least a 50-foot setback from that wetland. Based on the location map of the wetland provided by the biologist and the fact that the house, at its northeast corner, is set back 20 feet from the front property line and 11 feet from the side property line, the residence as proposed is situated 51 feet from the wetland habitat. Thus, the proposal complies with the required setbacks from wetlands established by the County's LCP.

       
     

No alternative location exists for the proposed residence, as the project site is 40 feet wide and the zoning requires 10-foot setbacks. Due to the lot size and these zoning requirements, the applicants are limited to a 20-foot wide buildable area and have no option for relocating the proposed development further away from the wetland. Additionally, to comply with the LCP Policy 7.18 requirement that wetland habitats are protected from development, staff has added to Condition of Approval No. 7 of Attachment B, two requirements to further protect any potential wetlands: (1) the stormwater management plan shall be reviewed by a biologist for comment regarding its effectiveness at preventing contamination of any wetland, and (2) the applicants shall be required to install silt fencing around the entire project site, which shall be maintained throughout construction.

       
     

It is the determination of staff that the project meets the setback requirements from wetland vegetation established by the County's LCP. Furthermore, it is the determination of staff, that if proper stormwater controls are in place both during and after construction, the project will not have a negative impact on any wetland that may exist in the vicinity of the project.

       
   

c.

Visual Resources and Design Review

       
     

Policy 8.12 (General Regulations) requires that the Design Review Zoning District Regulations (DR) apply to development in urban areas of the Coastal Zone. The proposed addition conforms with DR standards, as indicated in Section C.2.b of this report. This policy also requires that all development protect ocean views from public viewing points. After completing a site visit, staff has determined that this project will not disturb ocean views from any adjacent roadways or public lands. Staff noted that the existing views towards the ocean are blocked by existing development, such as the Landis Beach Luxury Inn and Miramar Beach Restaurant, on Mirada Road, which runs adjacent to the beach. The proposed development sits within the envelope of existing buildings on Mirada Road and will not exacerbate the existing conditions of obstructed views towards the ocean.

       
     

The applicants are proposing to apply earth-tone colors and a landscape plan to enhance the structure, and ensure that the house will be consistent both with nearby structures and the natural setting of the area. Therefore, staff feels that the project is in conformance with this policy.

       
   

d.

Hazards

       
     

Policy 9.9.b (Regulation of Development in Floodplains) requires that development located in flood hazard areas meet the requirements of the Building Inspection Section for structurally safe construction in a flood zone. As discussed in Section C.1.c of this report, the project complies will all applicable standards for new construction in a flood hazard area.

       
 

4.

Conformance with Use Permit Finding

     
   

The subject parcel lies within the R-1/S-94 Zoning District, which requires a minimum parcel size of 10,000 sq. ft. Due to the fact that the subject parcel was part of a legal subdivision, but only consists of 4,400 sq. ft., this parcel is considered legal non-conforming. Section 6133.3.b(1)(a) of the County Zoning Regulations, regarding non-conforming parcels, allows development on an unimproved non-conforming parcel that is less than 5,000 sq. ft., subject to issuance of a use permit. The following findings, as required by Section 6133.3.b(3) of the County Zoning Regulations, must be made to approve a use permit for the proposed project:

     
   

a.

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

       
     

The proposed structure will meet all of the zoning requirements of the interim regulations required at the time of submittal, including setbacks, height, lot coverage and floor area ratio. Additionally, the proposed residence has incorporated an articulated facade, which will add interest to the exterior of the structure and reduce the appearance of the mass of the structure. Therefore, staff believes that the project is appropriately proportioned to the parcel size.

       
   

b.

All opportunities to acquire additional contiguous land in order to achieve conformity with the zoning regulations currently in effect have been investigated and proved to be infeasible.

       
     

The applicants have indicated in the application that all efforts to acquire additional contiguous land have been exhausted. The real estate broker, representing the applicants at the time of the purchase of the subject parcel, submitted a letter to the Planning Division confirming that none of the adjacent parcels is available to purchase by the applicants. The parcel to the west (048-013-240) of the subject parcel is developed with a bed and breakfast. The letter indicated that the real estate broker representing the applicants spoke with the agents representing the owners of the parcels to the east (048-013-570) and south (048-013-280) of the subject property and that both owners were planning to develop their parcels. Staff confirmed that applications for CDPs for new single-family dwellings were submitted to the Planning Division for the parcels to the east and south of the subject property on November 24, 1999 and March 4, 1999, respectively.

       
     

The Planning Commission, upon reviewing the project, did not feel that all opportunities to acquire the property to the east had been exhausted. The Planning Commission questioned how vigorously the applicants had pursued purchase of the adjacent property and indicated that written statements were preferable evidence of due diligence than verbal statements, alone. Additionally, because the future of development on the parcel to the east of the project is uncertain at this time, there may be an opportunity for the applicants to purchase the adjacent property at a later point. Therefore, the Planning Commission did not believe that this finding could be made.

       
     

If, on the other hand, the Board of Supervisors should feel that the information provided by the applicants is sufficient evidence that all opportunities to acquire additional property have been proven to be infeasible, then staff believes that this finding can be made.

       
   

c.

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

       
     

The proposed single-family residence meets all of the Zoning Regulations currently in effect at the time of the application and also meets the Zoning Regulations recently adopted that replaced the old S-9 regulations applicable to the project. The only regulation that the project does not meet is with regard to parcel size. As the project meets all of the development requirements of the Zoning Regulations and the property owners have indicated that all attempts to acquire adjacent properties have been refused, staff believes that the project is as in conformance with all regulations as is reasonably possible.

       
   

d.

The establishment, maintenance, and/or conducting of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, result in a significant adverse impact to coastal resources, or be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the said neighborhood.

       
     

Staff believes this finding can be made and that the proposed non-conforming single-family residence will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties. The proposed structure will be proportioned to the parcel size and will be in harmony with local development. Furthermore, the conscientious design of the project to meet the FEMA requirements for development in flood hazard areas limits the potential damage to the subject property or surrounding properties as a result of flood. Additionally, though sensitive habitats have been located near the project site, the proposal conforms to all policies regarding protection of these vital areas. Staff feels that the development of this single-family residence, therefore, will not cause harm to neighboring properties or coastal resources, and that this finding can be made.

       
   

e.

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

       
     

The proposed development of a single-family residence on a non-conforming parcel will be similar to other single-family residences in the surrounding neighborhood. Use permits have been granted to other compatible residences on non-conforming parcels located in the general vicinity of the project site. Therefore, staff believes that the approval of the use permit would not constitute a granting of a special privilege.

       

D.

REVIEW BY MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL

   
 

On May 29,2002, staff referred this project to the Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) Planning and Zoning Subcommittee for review and comments. The Subcommittee met on the proposed project on September 20, 2002. Staff received formal comments from the Chair of the Subcommittee on October 14, 2002. Following are the comments of the Midcoast Community Council and staff's response to those comments:

   
 

The Committee is unanimously concerned that the size of this parcel does not meet the minimum 10,000 sq. ft. lot size for the area.

   
 

As discussed in Sections C.2 and C.4 of this report, development of a substandard lot is permissible in any zoning district, per Section 6133.3.b(1)(a) of the County Zoning Regulations, subject to the issuance of a use permit.

 

All development in this area has a direct impact on the visual resources component of the LCP and Zoning Regulations.

   
 

Staff reviewed the project for conformance with all Local Coastal Program (LCP) requirements and Design Review criteria for visual quality and found the project to be in conformance with all applicable policies. Staff feels that the visual impact of this project will be negligible due to existing development in the area and the fact that the project meets all height and setback requirements for the zoning district.

   
 

The applicants made the design changes we requested.

   
 

The applicants redesigned the project at the request of the Planning and Zoning Subcommittee. The Subcommittee had no objection to the design of the final project as submitted to the Midcoast Community Council on September 20, 2002.

   
 

This project has not been counted in our build-out numbers and will have long-term impacts on the community infrastructure including traffic, schools and drainage.

   
 

Staff recognizes that the build-out numbers projected in the early 1980s in the Local Coastal Program (LCP) may not have counted a single separate lot less than 5000 sq. ft., such as the parcel in question. Long Range Planning staff is currently working on an LCP update in which build out is being recalculated and new projections will include single, developable lots, such as the subject parcel. Staff, however, feels that because this parcel is a legal lot, which was created by subdivision, the current owners are within their rights to develop the parcel as requested, considering the project meets all other zoning requirements.

   
 

Moreover, LCP Policy 1.22 establishes maximums for the number of building permits that can be issued each year based on the capacity of water, schools and other public facilities. The maximum number of building permits has not been issued this year and therefore, staff finds no reason to believe that this project will adversely affect infrastructure in the area. Additionally, the project, as conditioned, includes measures to prevent long-term erosion and water pollution from stormwater runoff. Because the parcel on which the project is proposed is a legal lot and the maximum number of building permits has not been issued for this year in the Midcoast area, staff finds no reason to deny this project, which meets all zoning requirements, as staff does not believe that the project will have a significant impact on infrastructure or future build-out projections for the area.

   
 

There is a definite imbalance being created by the piecemeal development of the west side of the highway in Miramar. Long-range planning in this area is and has been historically lacking and inconsistent in this area.

   
 

Staff feels that these comments are subjective and should have no bearing on the approval of this project. Prior to the LCP amendment of the early 1980s and the change of the zoning in the Miramar area to S-9 (10,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size), the project had been zoned S-7 (5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size), which allowed smaller lots to be legally developed in this area, without issuance of use permits. Since 1983, the minimum parcel size has been 10,000 sq. ft. and the County, as a part of the LCP amendment, required the merger of contiguous lots in common ownership of less than 10,000 sq. ft. There are, however, parcels in the area that remain, which are less than 10,000 sq. ft. As previously stated, the subject parcel is a legal parcel and therefore, subject to issuance of a use permit, can be developed per the County Zoning Regulations. Furthermore, the County General Plan designates this area as an urban area and assumes that all lots in the area will be developed. Staff finds no reason to deny this project based on a philosophical belief regarding development in the area, when the project meets all requirements of the County Zoning Regulations, General Plan, and Local Coastal Program.

   

E.

ALTERNATIVE

   
 

If the Board of Supervisors, upon hearing testimony at the public hearing, believes the project complies with applicable General Plan Policies, Local Coastal Program Policies, Zoning Regulations, and finds the required use permit findings can be made as indicated in Section C.4 of this staff report, including:

   
 

    All opportunities to acquire additional contiguous land in order to achieve conformity with the zoning regulations currently in effect have been investigated and proved to be infeasible.

   
 

Then staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors:

   
 

    Grant the appeal and overturn the decision of the Planning Commission by approving Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Design Review, County File Number PLN 2000-00676, by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval listed in Attachment B of this report.

   

F.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

   
 

This project is exempt from environmental review under the provisions of Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act, regarding construction of a new single-family residence in an urban area.

   

G.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

   
 

Department of Public Works

 

Building Inspection Section

 

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

 

Midcoast Community Council (MCCC)

 

Coastside County Water Department

 

Granada Sanitation District

 

Sonoma State University

 

California Coastal Commission

   

VISION ALIGNMENT

 

The project to construct a new single-family residence furthers Goal and Commitment 5, which is to "Redesign our built environment to increase vitality, expand variety and reduce congestion." The project accomplished this because it would provide a housing unit within an infill area already zoned for such development where local infrastructure already exists and located just off Cabrillo Highway, the major transportation corridor of the Midcoast area.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

A.

Recommended Finding for Denial of Project

B.

Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval of Project

C.

Vicinity Map

D.

Location Map

E.

Assessor's Parcel Map

F.

Site Plan and Floor Plans

G.

Elevations

H.

Letter of Appeal to the Board of Supervisors

I.

Planning Commission Staff Report, excluding attachments

J.

Biological Report for Lot 20

K.

Biological Report for Lot 21

L.

MCCC Comments

M.

Letters of Support for Project

N.

Letters Against Proposal

   
   

MR:CO:fc - CFON0718_WFU.DOC

Attachment A

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL

 

Permit or Project File Number: PLN 2000-00676

Hearing Date: June 10, 2003

 

Prepared By: China F. Osborn

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

 
 

RECOMMENDED FINDING

 

The findings for issuance of a Non-Conforming Use Permit required by Section 6133.3.b(3) of the County Zoning Regulations cannot be made, as all opportunities to acquire additional contiguous land in order to achieve conformity with the zoning regulations currently in effect have not been investigated nor proven to be infeasible.

MR:CO:fc - CFON0718_WFU.DOC

Attachment B

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Permit or Project File Number: PLN 2000-00676

Hearing Date: June 10, 2003

 

Prepared By: China F. Osborn

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

 
 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

 

For the Environmental Review, Find:

   

1.

That this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, per Section 15303, Class 3, regarding construction of a single-family residence in an urban area.

   

For the Coastal Development Permit, Find:

   

2.

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.

   

3.

That the project conforms to the specific findings required by the policies of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program, particularly those findings relating to construction of single-family residences.

   

4.

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

   

For Design Review, Find:

   

5.

That the project, as proposed, complies with the Design Review Standards for Coastal Zone areas, as outlined in Section 6565.7 of the Zoning Regulations.

   

For the Use Permit, Find:

   

6.

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

   

7.

That all opportunities to acquire additional contiguous land in order to achieve conformity with the zoning regulations currently in effect have been investigated and proved to be infeasible.

   

8.

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

   

9.

That the establishment, maintenance, and/or conducting of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, result in a significant adverse impact to coastal resources, or be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the said neighborhood.

   

10.

That use permit approval of this project does not constitute a granting of special privileges.

   

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Planning Division

 

1.

This approval applies only to the proposal, documents and plans described in this report and submitted to and approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 10, 2003. The Planning Director may approve minor revisions or modifications to the project if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

   

2.

The Coastal Development Permit is valid for one year, from the date of this approval. If all applicable building permits have not been issued by that date, this permit shall expire. Any request to extend the length of this permit must be received in writing with payment of all applicable fees no later than 30 days prior to expiration of the permit.

   

3.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicants shall submit two color samples each (no larger than 4 inches squared) of all proposed exterior colors and materials (walls, trim, roof, windows) to the Planning Division for review and approval. Any proposed color must blend with the existing vegetation and natural surrounding of the site. The Planning Division shall verify the use of the approved colors and materials prior to the final inspection of the Building Inspection Section.

   

4.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicants shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a landscaping plan, which softens the visual impact of the proposed residence. The proposal should include at least one tree in the front yard and two in the rear yard of a minimum of 5 gallons each. The proposed plan shall also incorporate a minimum of fifteen shrubs along the front and sides of the house. Areas in the front of the house that do not contain trees, shrubs, or landscaping shall be planted with groundcover. The proposed landscaping should include the use of native vegetation where possible. The implementation of the approved landscaping plan shall be verified by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the final building permit.

   

5.

The proposed driveway shall be constructed of a pervious material. This material shall be shown on the construction plans submitted to the Building Inspection Section and shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the building permit.

   

6.

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

   
 

a.

The datum point and its elevation. This datum point shall be used during construction to verify the elevation of the finished floors relative to the existing natural or finished grade.

     
 

b.

The natural grade elevations at a minimum of four significant corners of the structure's footprint.

     
 

c.

The elevations of the proposed finished grades of the garage slab, first floor and second floor must be shown on the plan, elevations and cross-section.

     
 

d.

The ridgeline elevation of the highest point on the roof.

     

7.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants will submit to the Planning Division for review and approval, an erosion control and stormwater management plan, which shows how the transport and discharge of pollutants from the project site will be minimized. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by an independent biological expert to ensure that the plan prevents potential contamination of any potential wetland species in the vicinity of the project. The plan shall emphasize the use of pervious materials and the minimization of water runoff from the site. The goal is to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the local drainage systems and water bodies, and to protect all exposed earth surfaces from erosion forces. Said plan shall adhere to the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program "General Construction and Site Supervision Guidelines," including:

   
 

a.

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

     
 

b.

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

     
 

c.

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

     
 

d.

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

     
 

e.

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

     
 

Additionally, the applicants are required to install silt fencing around the entire project site, before construction begins. The fencing shall be maintained at all times during project construction.

   

8.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicants shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a permanent stormwater control plan, showing how, after construction, water flow will be diverted and filtered to prevent flooding and over-saturation of soils with water. The use of landscaping to prevent water runoff from the site is encouraged.

   

9.

The approved stormwater management plan shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit. The permanent stormwater controls shall be in place throughout the grading, construction and life of the project.

   

10.

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

   

11.

All new power and telephone utility lines shall be placed underground starting at the closest existing utility pole. All equipment, lighting switches, and panels shall be installed above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) as indicated on the site plan.

   

12.

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

   

13.

During project construction, the applicants shall monitor noise produced on the site and at no moment in time shall noise levels exceed those established by the Noise Control Chapter (Chapter 4.88) of the County Ordinance Code.

   

Building Inspection Section

   

14.

Prior to pouring any foundations, a licensed surveyor must verify, in writing, that the setbacks have been maintained as per the approved plans.

   

15.

The structure shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system. This permit must be issued prior to or in conjunction with the building permit.

   

16.

FEMA elevation certificates must be submitted with the building permit application, and confirmation that the lowest horizontal member is above the base flood elevation (BFE) will be required during construction before the project is allowed to proceed beyond the first floor deck. A final certificate will be required for the final building inspection.

   

17.

Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicants shall submit proof of water and wastewater service to the Building Inspection Section.

   

Department of Public Works

   

18.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicants will be required to provide payment of "roadway mitigation fees" based on the square footage (assessable space) of the proposed building per Ordinance No. 3277.

   

19.

Should construction work within the County right-of-way be necessary, it shall not begin until Public Works requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit, including review of applicable plans, have been met and an encroachment permit issued by the Department of Public Works.

   

20.

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

   

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

   

21.

As per County Ordinance, the applicants are required to install an automatic fire sprinkler system within the proposed or improved dwelling. All areas that are accessible for storage purposes shall be equipped with fire sprinklers. The plans for this system must be submitted to the San Mateo County Planning and Building Division. A building permit will not be issued until plans are received, reviewed and approved. Upon submission of the plans, the County will forward a complete set to the Half Moon Bay Fire District for review. The fee schedule for automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with Half Moon Bay Ordinance No. 13. Fees shall be paid prior to plan review.

   

22.

An exterior bell and interior horn/strobe are required to be wired into the required flow switch on your fire sprinkler system. The bell, horn/strobe and flow switch, along with the garage door opener, are to be wired into a separate circuit breaker at the main electrical panel and labeled.

   

23.

As per the California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations, the applicants are required to install State Fire Marshal approved and listed smoke detectors which are hardwired, interconnected and have battery backup. These detectors are required to be placed in each sleeping room and at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. A minimum of one detector shall be placed on each floor. Smoke detectors shall be tested and approved prior to the final building inspection.

   

24.

Building identification shall be conspicuously posted and visible from the street. (TEMPORARY ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE POSTED PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING MATERIALS BEING PLACED ON SITE.) The letters/numerals for permanent address signs shall be of adequate size and of a color, which is contrasting with the background. In no case shall the letters/numerals be less than 4 inches in height with a minimum 3/4-inch stroke. Such letters/numerals shall be internally illuminated and facing the direction of access.

   

25.

The roof covering of every new building or structure, and materials applied as part of a roof covering assembly, shall have a minimum fire rating of Class "B" or higher as defined in the current edition of the California Building Code.

   

26.

The applicants must have a maintained all-weather surface road for ingress and egress of fire apparatus. The San Mateo County Department of Public Works and the Half Moon Bay Fire District Ordinance shall set road standards.

   

27.

The Half Moon Bay Fire District requires a minimum clearance of 30 feet, or to the property line of all flammable vegetation to be maintained around all structures by the property owner. This does not include individual species of ornamental shrubs and landscaping.