COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

October 7, 2003

SET TIME:

9:00 a.m.

BOARD MEETING DATE:

October 28, 2003

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 for a domestic well on a legal substandard size parcel located on 13th Street, Montara, in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County. This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

County File Number:

PLN 2001-00681 (Burke/Carey)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit for a domestic well, County File Number 2001-00681, by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval cited in Attachment A.

PROPOSAL

The applicant is proposing to drill a domestic well on a legal substandard 4,500 sq. ft. parcel, located in the R-1/S-17 zoning district of Montara.

BACKGROUND

Report Prepared By: Olivia Sun, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1852

Appellant: Al MacMorres

Applicant: Kerry Burke

Owner: Helen Carey

Location: Northwest corner of 13th Street and Farallone Avenue, Montara

APN: 037-013-390

Parcel Size: Approximately 4,500 sq. ft.

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-17/DR (Single-Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum/Design Review)

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1 - 8.7 dwelling units/acre)

Existing Land Use: Unimproved with vegetation

Flood Zone: Zone "C" (Area of Minimal Flooding); Panel No. 060311 0092B; effective July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15304 of the CEQA guidelines, minor alteration to land.

Setting: The existing parcel is surrounded by existing single-family dwellings in all directions. The parcel slopes gently down to the west and is covered with native vegetation. The appellant, Mr. MacMorres, resides at 321 - 13th Street (APN 037-013-250), located immediately to the rear, east side of the subject property.

Chronology:

Date

Action

October 11, 2001

-

Received the application for the domestic well.

November 8, 2001

-

Staff site inspection.

July 24, 2002

-

Coastal Development Permit approved.

August 8, 2002

-

Appeal filed opposing approval.

May 14, 2003

-

Planning Commission public hearing. Planning Commission approves the permit.

May 29, 2003

-

Appeal application received.

October 28, 2003

-

Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

A.

PREVIOUS ACTION

The Planning Commission upheld the Planning Administrator's decision by denying the appeal and approved the Coastal Development Permit for a domestic well (4-0, Commissioner Nobles absent). The appeal to the Planning Commission considered the following issues: (a) his water supply is put at risk with more wells; (b) the geo-study is biased so as not to reject a well application; (c) owls hunt the subject lot containing the endangered yellow striped racer; (d) the Supervisors took an oath to serve and protect; (e) for every structure built, the aquifer recharge is diminished; and (f) the Board of Supervisors and San Mateo County will be held accountable. The Planning Commission reviewed each issue in the appeal and found the proposal complied with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and the Local Coastal Program. The Planning Commission's decision is now being appealed.

Many of the issues included in this appeal to the Board of Supervisors are identical or similar in nature to the issues presented before the Planning Commission and are covered in Section C. New key issues are indicated in Section B below in bold type followed by staff's response. A complete copy of the appeal is included as Attachment G.

B.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

1.

"What happens to Gary Skowron of 711 Etheldore in Moss Beach whose well has "run dry"? What recourse has his family? How many wells can our aquifer service? Can we investigate or do we count the straws on the camel's back after it falls? (See Attachment G, page 1 of appellant's appeal letter.)

Staff's Response: The appellant mentions Mr. Skowron's well specifically because the appellant believes Mr. Skowron's well has already run dry and the appellant feels this problem should not have occurred. However, it is important to be aware that there could be other factors associated with his well going dry. Also staff consulted the Environmental Health Division, while the department cannot rule out well failure, the Environmental Health Division has no record of a dry well at 711 Etheldore.

Environmental Health reviewed this application proposal, and determined that it meets the department's requirements and there is no reason to deny the permit. If a well runs dry, the owner's recourse will be to apply for an Emergency Coastal Development Exemption for a replacement well.

The number of wells that can ultimately be served by the existing Montara Aquifer with no adverse impacts will be determined by the Phase II Midcoast Aquifer Study.

2.

"From the San Mateo County General Plan: Policy 10.10 ... Discourages use of wells to service urban areas ...." Is the County doing anything to discourage the use of wells in the coastal urban areas? Has it ever denied a well application? If so, what percent has it denied? (See Attachment G, page 2 of appellant's appeal letter.)

Staff's Response: General Plan Policy 10.10 (Water Suppliers in Urban Areas) discusses public water systems as the preferred method of water supply in urban areas. However, wells are allowed to serve urban uses when: (1) no water is available from a water system to serve the area; (2) there is no threat to public heath, safety or welfare presented by the cumulative effects of well drilling in the area; and (3) the following is demonstrated: (a) water quality meets County and State standards, (b) the water flow meets County and State standards and is sufficient to meet the needs of the requested uses; and (c) the well is a safe distance from potential sources of pollution and other existing wells.

Per Policy 10.10, a well is permitted due to the fact that although Montara Sanitary District (MSD), the public water utility serving the Montara area, has no available water utility connections for the subject property and has no plans to make this available in the immediate future. To date, well drilling has not resulted in any threats to public health, safety or welfare. Per Policy 10.10.3(a-c), the owner will be required to meet all County and State standards through the County Environmental Health Division. The project has been conditioned that when MSD has water available for the subject parcel, the property owner will be required to pay applicable fees to MSD and hookup the public water system, thereby eliminating the use of the well.

3.

"This would only be postponement of a `spec' house to this owner/builder who builds several `spec' houses per year. In fact, the owner has requested that her other lot across the street (the SE corner of Farallone and 13th) have a lot line adjustment. This would leave six adjacent wells (size is a red flag) radius of less than 100 yards and three adjacent substandard lots with wells. Will this be discouraged by the Supervisors?" (See Attachment G, page 2 of appellant's appeal letter.)

Staff's Response: Property owners have a right to apply for permits for wells and/or apply to build a single-family dwelling as allowed by and to the standards of the R-1/S-17/DR zoning district. Owners also have the right to apply for a Coastal Development Permit to build on a substandard parcel with the requirement that the proposed home complies with the standard R-1/S-17/DR zoning regulations and proof that he/she has made an attempt to purchase adjacent property in order to meet the minimum standard parcel size.

Although it is not uncommon for a property owner to propose up to three possible well locations on a parcel as part of the Coastal Development Permit domestic well application, the owner has chosen to apply to drill just one well.

Regarding the mentioned lot line adjustment, staff has not found record of any lot line adjustment proposals for the parcels located at the southeast corner of Farallone and 13th Street (APNs 037-014-290 and 037-014-280).

4.

"The 300 wells in Montara and Moss Beach withdraw the equivalent of 64 gallons per minute. When community wells, for commercial or special districts, are proposed, they are required to examine the potential environmental effects. There has not been an examination of this potential effect of these new wells as of yet. What test will be made on this site?" (See Attachment G, page 2 of appellant's appeal letter.)

Staff's Response: There is currently no documentation confirming that the well water supply is at risk or that additional wells will create such risk. In April 2002, the County hired consultants to conduct a Phase I Study of the San Mateo County Midcoast aquifers. As stated in the Introduction Section of the Phase I Study, "The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors seeks to identify the groundwater yield that may be safely taken from the `Midcoast' aquifers, and estimate the number of residential wells that they will be able to permit without posing significant risks to community health or environmental resources and values. The `San Mateo County Midcoast' is loosely referred to as the stretch of coast along Highway 1 from northern Half Moon Bay to Devil's Slide." The Phase I Study confirmed that the Montara Aquifer is stable. But the County did establish new requirements for Midcoast wells at the end of Phase I, to provide greater assurance that approved wells would have no adverse effects. The County is in the process of conducting a Phase II Study of the San Mateo County Midcoast aquifers. Phase II Study will analyze the data and develop alternatives and recommendations. In addition, Environmental Health has reviewed the subject project and finds that it complies with the Well Ordinance and setback requirements.

5.

"Rainwater flows downhill from the whole of 11th, 12th and 13th Streets into the lot in question. In winter, it is a small creek or stream. That lot is the last spot of recharge in that flow path before it drains into the gutters. It is approximately 100 yards from Montara Creek which could easily be affected by development." (See Attachment G, page 3 of appellant's appeal letter.)

Staff's Response: Staff consulted the Department of Public Works regarding the existing drainage at the intersection of Farallone Avenue and 13th Street. Farallone Avenue slopes down from 11th and 12th Streets. There is an existing catch basin on Farallone Avenue located immediately in front of the subject parcel. This catch basin provides adequate drainage for sheet flow on Farallone Avenue that would flow down from 11th and 12th Streets. Farallone Avenue is designed to direct sheet flow to the catch basin. The topography of the subject parcel is higher in elevation than Farallone Avenue and 13th Street; some of the water that drains from the parcel itself will also go to the catch basin. In addition, any future spec house proposed on the subject property will require a drainage plan approved by the Building Inspection Section.

6.

"In closing, I would like to recite two items from the Shared Vision 2010. The promise of the peninsula: (14) important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship [Montara Creek]; and (20) government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than the temporary relief or immediate gain." Where is the truth in these statements? (See Attachment G, page 4 of appellant's appeal letter.)

Staff's Response: The County's Graphics Section has prepared a map noting the location of the subject parcel and its proximity to Montara Creek (see Attachment O). The subject parcel is over 600 feet from Montara Creek and staff believes the project is in compliance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) buffer zones.

Staff reviewed the project with the Coastal Development Permit checklist and found the project to comply with all applicable policies with no significant areas requiring mitigation.

C.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Indicated below are the key issues in the appeal to the Planning Commission. They have been included here for background and reference to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission considered the following topics and concluded there were no issues.

1.

"My water supply is put at risk with more wells (four adjacent existing wells in 100-foot radius)."

Response: There is currently no documentation confirming that the well water supply is at risk or that additional wells will create such risk. In April 2002, the County hired consultants to conduct a Phase I Study of the San Mateo County Midcoast aquifers. As stated in the Introduction Section of the Phase I Study, "The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors seeks to identify the groundwater yield that may be safely taken from the `Midcoast' aquifers, and estimate the number of residential wells that they will be able to permit without posing significant risks to community health or environmental resources and values. The `San Mateo County Midcoast' is loosely referred to as the stretch of coast along Highway 1 from northern Half Moon Bay to Devil's Slide." The Phase I Study confirmed that the Montara Aquifer is stable. The County is in the process of conducting a Phase II Study of the San Mateo County Midcoast aquifers. Phase II Study will analyze the data and develop alternatives and recommendations. In addition, Environmental Health has reviewed the subject project and finds that it complies with the Well Ordinance and setback requirements.

2.

"My neighbors' water supply is put at risk."

Response: Please see response to Item C.1 above.

3.

"The geo-study is biased so as not to reject a well application. Montarans know that the drought in the mid-1980s was relieved by the first few rains. The aquifer is affected by rain."

Response: The geo-study the appellant is referring to is the Phase I Study completed in 2002. The Planning Commission believes the study is not biased since the purpose of the Phase I Study was not to evaluate a well application but to identify information sources, groundwater units and their boundaries. The Phase II Study will analyze the data and develop alternatives and recommendations, with Phase III assessing their environmental effects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Phase I Study (Table 6) summarizes sources of rainfall and states "no specific relations are yet defined for the geographically-distinct watersheds of the Midcoast." As mentioned in Section 6, Closure, of the Phase I Study, "data describing aquifer properties are limited in the study area. Basic hydrologic data--such as rainfall and stream flow--are also limited in the study area."

"The next phase of the Midcoast groundwater study may include initial analysis and synthesis and identify: (a) where the aquifers are recharged by rainfall and those aquifers that are recharged mainly by streams, and (b) relate rainfall to (1) onset of observed recharge, and (2) development of saturated soils in the watershed."

4.

"Owls hunt that lot."

Response: Based upon review of the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database, the best available resource to the Planning Division, the Planning Commission has determined that there is no indication of wildlife species existing on the project site. A biologist report would be required to confirm what, if any, special status species exist on the parcel. If a biologist report confirms existence of any such species and confirmed them a special status, the biologist would have to provide appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented by the applicant. The Planning Commission is not recommending a biological study at this time.

The Fish and Game Natural Diversity Map does note possible existence of rose linanthus plant species in the vicinity of the subject site. However, the project site is on the edge of a 1,000-foot radius study area. Additionally, the immediate area of the project site is developed with single-family homes and improved County-maintained streets. The Planning Commission believes the proposed well will not be a significant impact to the plant species.

5.

"The Supervisors took an oath to serve and protect. They should protect residents at the expense of building contractors."

Response: Upon consultation with the Environmental Health Division, in 2002, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors rejected a moratorium restricting issuance of any permits for new wells in the Midcoast, as unwarranted based on evidence. Instead, they tightened well regulations for that area and funded Phase II, now underway.

6.

"The Board of Supervisors and San Mateo County will be held accountable."

Response: See response above to Item C.5.

7.

"Sole source aquifers have special laws, do we have this?"

Response: "A Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) is an aquifer designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the `sole or principal source' of drinking water for a given aquifer service area; that is, an aquifer which is needed to supply 50% or more of the drinking water for that area and for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources should the aquifer become contaminated. Sole Source Aquifer designations are one tool to protect drinking water supplies in areas with few or no alternative sources to the groundwater resource and where, if contamination occurred, using an alternative source would be extremely expensive. Any person may apply for SSA designation. A `person' is an individual, corporation, company, association, partnership, state, municipality or federal agency."

San Mateo County does not have any designated Sole Source Aquifers (see Attachment H).

D.

COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

1.

Conformance with the General Plan

Staff has evaluated the project for compliance with all applicable General Plan Policies, with specific discussion of the following:

Policy 10.4 (Development of Water Supplies) promotes the development of water supplies to serve: (a) agricultural uses, as the highest priority; (b) domestic uses; and (c) recreational uses. The subject domestic well is being proposed in hopes of finding and providing water for a future single-family dwelling.

Policy 10.10 (Water Suppliers in Urban Areas) considers water systems as the preferred method of water supply in urban areas and discourages use of wells to serve urban areas. However, allow wells to serve urban uses when: (a) no water is available from a water system to serve the area; (b) there is no threat to public health, safety or welfare presented by the cumulative effects of well drilling in the area, and (c) the following is demonstrated: (1) water quality meets County and State standards; (2) the water flow meets County and State standards and is sufficient to meet the needs of the requested use; and (3) the well is a safe distance from potential sources of pollution and other existing wells.

Staff supports the domestic well being proposed, as no new water connections are available through Montara Sanitary District, the water company serving the area. To date, there is no evidence which states that drilling of new wells poses a threat to public health. See Sections C.2 and C.3 of this report for discussion of the hydrological studies, undertaken by the County, to assess the impact of existing and future wells in the Midcoast area on the aquifers. Upon Planning approval of the domestic well, the applicant must comply with the San Mateo County Environmental Health domestic well standards in order to receive well certification. This includes meeting water flow standards and confirmation that the proposed location(s) meet the minimum 5-foot setback from property lines and setbacks from existing wells on surrounding parcels.

Policy 10.18(a) (Aquifer Studies and Management) encourages support and cooperation in studies leading to a more thorough understanding of the groundwater aquifers, their location, quality, safe yield and migration patterns and that we formulate and carry out a management program that would ensure the long-term viability of aquifers for beneficial use.

See discussion under KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL, Item C.1.

Policy 10.20 (Well Location and Construction) regulates the construction and location of wells in areas subject to flooding or served by septic tanks in order to minimize adverse impacts.

As discussed under Policy 10.10, proposed domestic wells are given preliminary review by the Environmental Health Division to confirm that the proposed wells are adequately set back from existing surrounding wells and leach fields. This application complies with those regulations.

2.

Conformance with Zoning Regulations

The requirements of the R-1/S-17/DR district necessitate a review of the proposal against criteria outlined in Chapter 20 (Combining Districts) of the County Zoning Regulations. The subject well, however, will be drilled, undergo review by Environmental Health and then capped. No structures will be located above ground; therefore, the standard setbacks of this district do not apply at this time.

E.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)

Staff has reviewed this project and completed an LCP Policy checklist. Staff finds this project complies with applicable policies with a discussion with the following policy.

Policy 2.32 (Groundwater Proposal) requires, if new or increased well production is proposed to increase supply, that: (1) water quality be adequate, use blending if required, to meet the water standards of Policy 2.30; (2) wells are installed under inspection according to the requirements of the State and County Department of Public Health; (3) the amount pumped be limited to a safe yield factor which will not impact water dependent sensitive habitats, riparian habitats and marshes; and (4) base the safe yield and pumping restriction on studies conducted by a person agreed upon by the County and the applicant which shall: (a) prior to the granting of the permit, examine the geologic and hydrologic conditions of the site to determine a preliminary safe yield which will not adversely affect water dependent sensitive habitat; and (b) during the first year, monitor the impact of the well on groundwater and surface water levels and quality and plant species and animals of water dependent sensitive habitats to determine if the preliminary safe yield adequately protects the sensitive habitats and what measures should be taken if and when adverse effects occur.

The project is conditioned to comply with the above requirements through the Environmental Health Division.

F.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The project is categorically exempt under Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines, minor alteration to land.

VISION ALIGNMENT

This domestic well proposal keeps the commitment of redesigning our urban environment to increase vitality, expand variety, and reduce congestion and goal numbers 12 and 14. Goal number 12: land use decisions consider transportation and other infrastructure needs as well as impacts on the environment and on surrounding communities. Goal number 14: important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship. Through thorough analysis of the General Plan policies and Local Coastal Program, important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

General Location/Vicinity Map

C.

Parcel Map

D.

Survey

E.

Existing Wells in Immediate Area

F.

Site Photos

G.

Appeal Application and Letter Addressed to the Board of Supervisors and Supporting Attachments (submitted May 29, 2003)

H.

Support Letter of Opposition from Kathryn Slater-Carter, Interested Party (dated May 14, 2003)

I.

Memorandum to Terry Roberts (dated April 4, 1989)

J.

Letter of Opposition from Henry Ku, Interested Party

K.

Environmental Health Well Ordinance, Section 4.68.140, Location of Water Well

L.

Environmental Health Well Ordinance, Section 4.68.190, Standards for Adequate Water

M.

Graphics Noting Distance of Subject Property from Montara Creek

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit or Project File Number:

Board Meeting Date: October 28, 2003

PLN 2001-00681

Prepared By: Olivia Sun

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

A.

Regarding the Environmental Review, Find:

1.

That this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines, minor alteration to land.

B.

Regarding the Coastal Development Review, 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 to 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 regarding the placement of structures and the drilling of domestic wells in the urban unincorporated area.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.

This Coastal Development Permit approval applies only to drilling of one domestic well. Any additional well drilling or future development shall be subject to a separate Coastal Development Permit.

2.

This Coastal Development Permit shall be valid for one year from the date of final approval. Any extension of this permit shall require submittal of a written request and payment of the applicable extension fee to the Planning and Building Division thirty days prior to expiration.

3.

The placement of the domestic well shall be at least 50 feet from any sanitary sewer line, 50 feet from a septic tank, 75 feet from a drainage field, and 5 feet from a property line.

4.

The applicant shall ensure that if, during construction or grading, any evidence of archaeological traces (human remains, artifacts, concentration of shale, bone, rock, ash) is uncovered, then all construction or grading within a 30-foot radius shall be halted, the Planning Division shall be notified, and the applicant 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 applicant and the archaeologist, will determine the steps to be taken before construction or grading may continue.

5.

No tree cutting is allowed by this permit. Removal of any tree over 12 inches in diameter shall require a separate tree removal permit.

6.

The applicant is required to monitor the noise level at the sites so that the proposed construction activity will not exceed 80-dBA level at any one moment. All construction activity is limited to the construction hours of the County including 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sunday or any national holiday.

7.

The property owner shall apply for and obtain service from the Montara Sanitary District when adequate water supplies become available.

8.

The use of the water source shall not impair surface stream flow, the water supply of other property owners, agricultural production, or sensitive habitat.

Environmental Health Division

9.

The applicant shall obtain a well construction permit from the Environmental Health Division and meet all requirements of the Environmental Health Division.

10.

Prior to final approval of the well drilling permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the well water meets quality and quantity standards.

11.

The applicant shall comply with the County of San Mateo Health Regulations regarding sufficient separation between sewer line and domestic wells and ensure no conflict with current or future mains occurs.

Montara Sanitary District

12.

In the event connection fees for a water system are instituted, the applicant should be required to pay such fees and connect to the public water system.

13.

The applicant shall be required to obtain a sewer connection permit prior to issuance of a building permit for the construction of a house.

14.

Care must be taken to ensure compliance with County Health Regulations regarding sufficient separation between sewer lines and domestic wells and ensure no conflict with current or future mains occurs.