COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

October 20, 2003

SET TIME:

9:30 a.m.

BOARD MEETING DATE:

November 4, 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 deny Design Review approval for a 1,934 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,693 sq. ft. single-family residence located at 360 - 7th Street located in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County. This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

County File Number:

PLN 2002-00149 (Kuo)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the project, County File Number PLN 2002-00149, by making the finding listed in Attachment A of this report.

PROPOSAL

The applicant proposes to construct a 1,934 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,693 sq. ft. single-family residence on a 9,000 sq. ft. parcel.

BACKGROUND

Report Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi, Design Review Officer, Telephone 650/363-1831

Appellant/Applicant/Owner: Shih Kuo

Location: 360 - 7th Street, Montara

APNs: 036-023-180, and -190

Size: 9,000 sq. ft.

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-17/DR/CD (Single Family Residential/5000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size/Design Review/Coastal Development District)

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 8.7 dwelling per acre)

Sphere-of-Influence: City of Half Moon Bay

Existing Land Use: Existing Single Family Dwelling

Water Supply: Montara Sanitary District

Sewage Disposal: Montara Sanitary District

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map designation indicates parcel as Zone C, Areas of Minimal Flooding, Community-Panel No. 060311 0092 B, dated July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, Construction of an addition to an Existing Structure.

Setting: The subject parcel is on the southwestern portion of 7th Street between Farallone Avenue and East Avenue (see Parcel Vicinity Map, Attachment C). The parcel slopes up moderately from 7th Street. There is an existing 2,693 sq. ft. 2-story house on the subject parcel built in 1980. Adjacent parcels on either side of the subject parcel are developed with one and two-story single-family dwellings. Properties across 7th Street are also developed with one and two-story single-family homes.

Chronology:

Date

Action

April 10, 1907

-

Subdivision of area, Haneman's Seaside Park Tract.

October 10, 1980

-

A Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a 2,693 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling.

March 20, 2002

-

Application submitted for a Coastside Design Review for a 1,952 sq. ft. addition, for review by the Coastside Design Review Committee.

June 13, 2002

-

First Design Review Public Hearing of the project. The Committee continued the hearing with following requirements: (1) a redesign of the addition is required to reduce the size and scale of the addition by 25 percent, (2) eliminate the rooftop deck and attic space from the design, (3) reduce the size of second floor's family room by 500 sq. ft., (4) reconsider and redesign placement of bathrooms, (5) submit a geotechnical report, and (6) a landscape is required to include three 24-inch box trees, seven 15-gallon trees, and fifteen 5-gallon and twenty 1-gallon shrubs.

July 15, 2002

-

Midcoast Community Council recommended reduction of the addition with reference to Local Coastal Program (not applicable for this project, see Section B.1. of this report), County Zoning Regulations, and Community Design Manual (see Attachment Q).

August 8, 2002

-

Second Design Review hearing. The Committee voted unanimously to deny the project, based on its non-compliance with the Design Review standards for Coastside District specifically: (1) the proposed addition is not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural landforms of the site and does not ensure adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties, (2) views are not protected by the height and location of the addition, and (3) the design of the addition is inappropriate to the use of the property and is not in harmony with the shape, size, and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

August 15, 2002

-

Project is appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant.

February 12, 2003

-

The Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to deny the project due to its non-compliance with the Design Review standards for Coastside District as stipulated by the Coastside Design Review Committee.

February 27, 2003

-

Project is appealed to the Board of Supervisors by the applicant.

May 21, 2003

-

Applicant's meeting with the Planning Administrator regarding submittal of an alternate design. A revised plan is required with supporting statement indicating changes in design.

June 17, 2003

-

Revised plans submitted with an 18 sq. ft. reduction in floor area, removal of the attic, re-aligning first floor windows, and lowering of the height of the addition.

August 7, 2003

-

Supporting statement is submitted.

November 4, 2003

-

Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

A.

PREVIOUS ACTION

On February 12, 2003, upon appeal of the Design Review Committee's denial of the project, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the project based on its non-compliance with the Design Review standards for the Coastside District as stipulated by the Coastside Design Review Committee. The Planning Commission denied the project based on the bulk, location, and height of the addition, which they believed did not blend or retain the site's natural topography.

B.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

The main issues of the applicant's appeal are indicated below in bold type followed by staff's response. A complete copy of the appeal applications are included as Attachment N.

1.

Flaws in due process and substantive content of the staff report to the Planning Commission (dated February 12, 2003) regarding the findings of the Midcoast Community Council (MCCC) dated July 15, 2002 and Design Review chairperson conflict of interest, and reduction of the addition by 25 percent as stipulated by the Design Review Committee on June 13, 2002 hearing.

Staff's Response: The MCCC letter of review of the project was signed by Karen Wilson, the MCCC chair as well as the Montara community representative on the Coastside Design Review Committee. The appeal to the Planning Commission effectively "set aside" the decision of the Design Review Committee and the Commission conducted a new "de novo" hearing. The appeal to the Board has the same effect. Any alleged irregularities at the Design Review Committee level are thus not relevant to the Board's consideration of this matter. The issue is the project's compliance with County requirements.

The 25% reduction in size was imposed to comply with requirement that the project relate in size and scale to its surroundings.

2.

My objection with the Coastside Design Review Committee regarding the first four requirements stipulated on the June 13, 2002 hearing, including a redesign of the addition is required to: (1) reduce the size and scale of the addition by 25 percent, (2) eliminate the rooftop deck and attic space from the design, (3) reduce the size of second floor's family room by 500 sq. ft., and (4) reconsider and redesign placement of bathrooms; the deny procedure explained to me by the Design Review Officer.

Staff's Response: The 25 percent reduction is discussed above. The rooftop and attic space was required to be removed as a design issue even though it met the zoning requirements. The family room size reduction was based upon size and scale in relation to the neighborhood. The redesign of the bathrooms as placement of interior spaces was seen as an important design factor that could affect the exterior design. By repositioning these bathrooms, a better interior space design and subsequently a better façade could be achieved.

The applicant declined to revise plans or submit a geotechnical report and landscape plan as requested. Prior to the second Design Review hearing, staff communicated the procedure to the applicant regarding the process and possibility of denial if no changes in plans occurred, and the process thereafter. The applicant accepted the possibility of denial, affording him the chance to appeal that decision to the Planning Commission.

3.

Findings for denial (page 18 of the Planning Commission staff report).

Staff's Response: Findings for denial were first listed in the Design Review Committee's denial letter dated August 13, 2003. The three findings were listed on that letter for the first time due to the fact that the Committee had to first deny the project and then stipulate the decision's findings. Staff could not explain these findings to the applicant prior to that decision being made by the Committee.

The Committee and Commission denied the project based on the bulk and location of the addition which did not incorporate the natural topography for a lesser height and bulk. The Design Review standards and guidelines require that proposed structures are designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural landforms of the site and to ensure adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties. The addition did not retain and blend with the slope of the site and could be recessed more for an overall lesser height, where as proposed, it is three to five feet above the natural grade. The conclusion was that the bulky appearance of the addition conflicted with Design Review standards, which call for structures to respect the natural topography of the site by stepping down the hillside in the same direction as the natural grade.

The Committee reviewed supporting and objecting letters by neighbors at the June 13, 2002 hearing (see Attachments R and S, respectively). Some of the neighbors were concerned about the size, scale, and the height of the addition that could ultimately reduce their views, and requested erection of story poles to help neighbors visualize the effect of the addition to the size and overall mass of the house. The applicant declined to redesign.

Although the usage of the property will remain a single-family dwelling, as allowed by the zoning ordinance, the Committee voted that the applicant could do more to revise the addition to step down the slope of the site, and reduce the size of the addition.

The maximum floor area allowed is 53 percent of the lot area or 4,770 sq. ft. The existing house is 2,693 sq. ft. and the addition would be 1,952 sq. ft. for a total of 4,645 sq. ft. This would be 52 percent of the lot area, nearly maximizing the allowable floor area (125 sq. ft. less than the maximum allowed). The Committee does not typically find fault with the floor area of a proposed home per se, but how the floor area contributes to the building's bulk and shape. The Committee was unable to find that this proposed home follows the natural topography of the site by stepping down the hillside with the natural grade, and believed that the size and scale of the addition creates a structure that is much larger than the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community. The Planning Commission came to the same conclusion.

C.

KEY ISSUES

1.

Compliance with Zoning Regulations

The table below shows the project's compliance with the zoning regulation.

R-1/S-17 Development Standards

Zoning Requirements

Proposal

Building Site Area

5,000 sq. ft.

9,000 sq. ft.

Building Site Width

50 ft.

89.98 ft.

Minimum Setbacks:

Front

20 ft.

25.77 ft.

Rear

20 ft.

32.66 ft.

Sides

5 ft. for the left and
10 ft. for the right side

4.62 ft. left side* and 18.83 ft. for the right side

Lot Coverage

3,150 sq. ft. (35%)

2,392 sq. ft. (26.6%)

Building Floor Area

4,770 sq. ft. (53%)

4,645 sq. ft. (52%)

Building Height

28 ft.

28 ft.

Minimum Parking

2 covered spaces

2 covered spaces

*Existing non-conforming

2.

Compliance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP)

The parcel is located within the Single-Family Categorized Exclusion Area, and thus qualifies for a Coastal Development Exclusion Certificate, and exemption from the LCP requirements.

3.

Compliance with Design Review Standards

The following Design Review standards of County Zoning Regulations, Section 6565.7 are discussed.

a.

Proposed structures are designed and situated so as to retain and blend in with the natural vegetation and landforms of the site and to insure adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties. See paragraph 9 of Section B of this report.

b.

Where grading is necessary for the construction of structures and paved areas, it blends with adjacent landforms through the use of contour grading rather than harsh cutting or terracing of the site and does not create problems of drainage or erosion on its site or adjacent property. The site requires minimal grading for construction of the structure.

c.

Streams and other natural drainage systems are not altered so as to affect their character and thereby using problems of drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation. There are no streams or natural drainage systems at the site.

d.

Structures are located outside flood zones, drainage channels and other areas subject to inundation. The project is not located within a flood zone, natural drainage channel, or other areas subject to inundation.

e.

Trees and other vegetation land cover are removed only when necessary for the construction of the structures or paved areas in order to reduce erosion and impacts on natural drainage channels, and maintain surface runoff at acceptable levels. The proposal does not include removal of any trees.

f.

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. No landscaping is required based upon denial of the project.

g.

Views are protected by the height and location of structures and through the selective pruning or removal of tree and vegetative matter at the end view corridors. There is no proposal for any trees to be removed or trimmed. However, the Design Review Committee felt that the structure's height could be reduced by lowering the addition and by eliminating the attic providing a lesser protrusion in to viewsheds.

h.

Construction on ridgelines blends with the existing silhouette and by maintaining natural vegetative masses and land forms and does not extend above the height of the forest or tree canopy. The project is not located on a ridgeline.

i.

Structures are set back from the edge of the bluffs and cliffs to protect views from scenic areas below. The site is not located on the edge of a bluff or cliff.

j.

Public views to and along the shoreline from public roads and other public lands are protected. The project is in an urban area of Montara, with Cabrillo Highway located three blocks west of the project site.

k.

Varying architectural styles are made compatible through the use of similar material and colors which blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project conforms with design requirements which includes varying architectural styles. Houses of similar colors and materials appear in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed earth-tone light-brown color for the walls help the structure to blend with the natural setting and surrounding neighborhood.

l.

The design of the structure is appropriate to the use of the property and is in harmony with the shape, size, and scale of the adjacent building in the community. The Planning Commission agreed with the Design Review Committee and was unable to find that this proposed home follows the natural topography of the site by stepping down the hillside with the natural grade, and that the size and scale of the addition creates a structure that is much larger than the shape, size and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

m.

Overhead utility lines are placed underground where appropriate to reduce the visual impact in open and scenic areas. There is an existing overhead utility line to the existing structure.

n.

The number, location, size, design, lighting, materials, and use of colors in signs are compatible with the architectural style of the structure they identify and harmonize with their surroundings. There are no signs proposed for this project.

o.

Paved areas are integrated into the site, relate to their structure, and are landscaped to reduce visual impact from residential areas and from roadways. There will be no additional paved areas to the existing setting of the site.

D.

ALTERNATIVE

On June 17, 2003, the applicant submitted revised plans in response to the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission's concerns, indicating an 18 sq. ft. reduction in floor area, removal of the attic, and re-aligning first floor windows improving side elevations. In addition, the roof deck is concealed by a wrap-around roof line, and an added second floor gable to the addition improves the aesthetic of front and rear elevations. Please see the alternative plans in Attachment I through M.

If the Board of Supervisors, upon hearing testimony at the public hearing and reviewing the applicant's alternative plans in Attachments I through M, believes the project complies with applicable Zoning Regulations and Design Review standards, it may make the required findings in Attachment U, and approve the project.

E.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Exempt from environmental review, under Section 15301, Class 1, Construction of Addition to an Existing Structure, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Exemption will be filed and posted for review forthwith.

F.

BUILDING INSPECTION SECTION REVIEW OF THE PROJECT

The Building Inspection Section's review determined that: (1) the project will exceed 50 percent evaluation and required valuation, (2) the non-permitted office in the existing garage should be removed, and (3) the area identified as attic will not be allowed to have wall or ceiling covering, with no insulation in walls or ceiling, and only one switch operated light and one receptacle shall be allowed.

G.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

Department of Public Works

Building Inspection Section

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

Midcoast Community Council

VISION ALIGNMENT

This process serves the Commitment of responsive, effective and collaborative government and the related goal of Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Finding of Denial

B.

General Location Map

C.

Vicinity Map

D.

Site Plan

E.

First Floor Plan

F.

Second Floor Plan

G.

Roof Design

H.

Elevations

I.

Alternative First Floor Plan

J.

Alternative Second Floor Plan

K.

Alternative Roof Design

L.

Alternative Front and Right Side Elevations

M.

Alternative Rear and Left Side Elevations

N.

Appeal Application

O.

Planning Commission Decision Letters

P.

Design Review Committee Decision Letters

Q.

MCCC Comments

R.

Supporting Letters

S.

Opposing Letters

T.

Applicant's Supporting Statement of Redesign of the House

U.

Alternative Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDING OF DENIAL

Permit or Project File Number:

Board Meeting Date: November 4, 2003

PLN 2002-00149

Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDING

For Design Review:

Find that this project has been reviewed under and found not to be in compliance with the Design Review standards for Coastside Districts, Section 6565.17 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations. Specifically that: (1) the proposed addition is not designed and situated so as to retain and blend with the natural landforms of the site and does not ensure adequate space for light and air to itself and adjacent properties, (2) views are not protected by the height and location of the addition, and (3) the design of the addition is inappropriate to the use of the property and is not in harmony with the shape, size, and scale of adjacent buildings in the community.

Attachment U

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit or Project File Number:

Board Meeting Date: November 4, 2003

PLN 2002-00149

Prepared By: Farhad Mortazavi

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Design Review Permit:

1.

Find that this project has been reviewed under and found to be in compliance with the standards of Design Review Standards for Coastside District, Section 6565.17 of the San Mateo County San Mateo Zoning Regulations.

For the Coastal Development Permit Exemption:

2.

Find that the proposed additions conform to Section 6328.5(e) of the County Zoning Regulations and is located within the area designated as a Categorical Exclusion Area.

For the Environmental Review:

3.

Find that this project is exempt from environmental review under the provisions of Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which allows construction of an addition to an existing structure. A notice of exemption will be filed and posted for review forthwith.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.

This approval applies only to the proposal, documents and plans described in this report and considered by the Board of Supervisors on November 4, 2003. Any changes or revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Officer or, where necessary, the Design Review Committee for approval.

2.

This permit shall be valid for five years from the date of approval. Any extension of this permit shall require submittal of an application for permit extension and payment of applicable permit extension fees sixty (60) days prior to expiration.

3.

Lot merger of two parcels is required.

4.

The applicant shall provide "finished floor elevation verification" on the submitted building plans to certify that the structure is actually constructed at the height shown on the submitted plans. The applicant shall have a licensed surveyor or engineer establish a baseline elevation datum point in the vicinity of the construction site.

a.

The applicant shall maintain the datum point so that it will not be disturbed by the proposed construction activities until final approval of the building permit.

b.

The datum point and its elevation shall be shown on the submitted site plan. This datum point shall be used during construction to verify the elevation of the finished floors relative to the existing natural or to the grade of the site (finished grade).

c.

Prior to planning approval of the building permit application, the applicant shall also have the licensed land surveyor or engineer indicate on the construction plans: (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners (at least four) of the footprint of the proposed structure on the submitted plan, and (2) the elevations of proposed finished grades.

d.

In addition, (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners of the proposed structure, (2) the finished floor elevations, (3) the topmost elevation of the roof and (4) garage slab elevation must be shown on the plan, elevations, and cross-section (if one is provided).

e.

Once the building is under construction, prior to the below floor framing inspection or the pouring of the concrete slab (as the case maybe) for the lowest floor, the applicant shall provide to the Building Inspection Section a letter from the licensed land surveyor or engineer certifying that the lowest floor height, as constructed is equal to the elevation specified for that floor in the approved plans. Similarly, certifications on the garage slab and the topmost elevation of the roof are required.

f.

If the actual floor height, garage slab, or roof height, as constructed, is different from the elevation specified in the plans, then the applicant shall cease all construction and no additional inspections shall be approved until a revised set of plans is submitted to and subsequently approved by both the Building Official and Planning Director.

5.

During project construction, the applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5022 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, minimize the transport and discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site into storm drain systems by:

a.

Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 1 and May 1.

b.

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 or other waterproof material.

c.

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

d.

Using filtration or other measures to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.

e.

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

f.

Limiting and timing application of pesticides and fertilizer to avoid polluting runoff.

6.

The project shall include water runoff prevention measures for the operation and maintenance of the project for the review and approval by the Planning Director. The project shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the discharge of pollutants with storm-water runoff and other water runoff produced from the project. Please refer to the attached handout which details the BMPs.

7.

The applicant shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. The erosion control plan shall clearly delineate the types of measures to be used, the location of where the measures will be placed as well as a sectional drawing showing how the measures shall be installed. All erosion control devices shall be installed on site prior to any grading activities on-site.

8.

The applicant shall submit a stormwater management plan, which shall include a site plan and narrative of the types of permanent stormwater controls that will be installed on site to minimize the surface water runoff. At a minimum, the directly connected impervious areas shall be minimized, downspouts shall be directed to landscaped areas and pervious materials shall be used for the access road, if possible, and any patio or walkway areas near the proposed residence.

9.

All new power and telephone lines from the street or nearest existing utility pole to the main dwelling and/or any other structure on the property shall be installed underground.

10.

The applicant shall apply for a building permit and shall adhere to all requirements form the Building Inspection Section, the Department of Public Works and the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District.

11.

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

12.

Color verification shall occur in the field after the applicant has applied the approved materials and colors but before a final inspection has been scheduled.

13.

Noise levels produced by construction activity shall not exceed the 80 dBA level at any one moment. Construction activity shall be limited to the hours from 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 operation shall be prohibited on Sunday and any national holiday.

Building Inspection Section

14.

The Building Inspection Section's review determined that: (1) the project will exceed 50 percent evaluation and required valuation, (2) the non-permitted office in the existing garage shall be removed, and (3) the area identified as attic will not be allowed to have wall or ceiling covering, with no insulation in walls or ceiling, and only one switch operated light and one receptacle shall be allowed.

Department of Public Works

15.

The applicant shall submit driveway "Plans and Profiles" to the Public Works Department, showing the driveway access to the parcel (garage slab/parking area) complying with County standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20%) and to County standards for driveways (at the property line) being the same elevation as the center of the access roadway. The driveway plans shall also include and show specific provisions and details for handling both the existing and the proposed drainage.

16.

The applicant shall prepare a plan indicating the current and/or proposed method of sewering this residence.

17.

The applicant shall submit a detailed plan showing how energy and communication utilities are or will be provided to the residence/addition.

18.

No construction work within the County right-of-way shall 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.

19.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant will be required to provide payment of "roadway mitigation fees" based on the increase in square footage (assessable space) do to the addition/remodel of the proposed residence per Ordinance #3277.

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

20.

The applicant shall comply with all conditions required by the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District.