COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

July 23, 2003

SET TIME:

9:15 a.m.

BOARD MEETING DATE:

August 12, 2003

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 Design Review Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling on Lot #7 of the Summit Jewel Subdivision located on Summit Drive in the unincorporated Emerald Lake Hills area of San Mateo County.

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to grant Design Review approval for construction of the new home by making the findings and adopting the conditions of approval.

PROPOSAL

The applicant is proposing to construct a new 2-story, 5,860 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and attached 661 sq. ft. garage on a 20,000 sq. ft. parcel, and remove two trees.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

The Planning Commission considered the proposed project on March 26, 2003, and voted 4-1 to approve the proposed design (Commissioner Silver dissented), but also continued the hearing to April 9, 2003 to give parties an opportunity to discuss the landscape plan. The Commissioners subsequently approved the project at that hearing (4-0, Commissioner Silver absent).

SUMMARY

The subject property, Lot 7 of the Summit Jewel Subdivision, is part of the subdivision approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 8, 2002.

The Bayside Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the project at five public hearings, and approved the project by a majority vote on January 8, 2003. The appellant appealed the Committee’s decision to the Planning Commission and in turn appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the Board of Supervisors. The key issues of the appeal are: (1) the DRC did not adequately review or approve all Design Review projects; 2) the Planning Commission staff report erroneously stated that the home (on Lot 7) does not step down the hill; (3) the Planning Commission staff report erroneously stated that the DRC had no objections to the project house size and scale, and (4) the Planning Commission staff report erroneously stated that the DRC expressed no concerns with the project’s lack of compatibility with the neighborhood character.

Staff believes that there is ample evidence in the record of hearings before the DRC to indicate that they thoroughly exhausted their review of the subject house on Lot 7, including full and adequate public notification, and based on the evidence ultimately issued informed decisions on the project. In turn, the Planning Commission considered many of these same points and approved the project.