COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

March 3, 2004

SET TIME:

9:15 a.m.

BOARD MEETING DATE:

March 23, 2004

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, and a second dwelling unit located at 209 Lakeview Way in the unincorporated Emerald Lake Hills area of San Mateo County.

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Design Review permit.

PROPOSAL

The applicant is proposing to construct a new 5,679 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an attached 824 sq. ft. garage, a 1,428 sq. ft. second dwelling unit with an attached garage, and remove two trees.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

On September 10, 2003, the Planning Commission voted 4-1, Commissioner Silver dissenting, to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Bayside Design Review Committee (DRC) to approve this project. The dissenting opinion was based primarily on concerns about size and scale of the proposal.

SUMMARY

Initially, the DRC reviewed the project at four separate public hearings. The DRC's community representative was not in favor of the size and scale of the project. At the last DRC hearing, one of the DRC members recused himself due to a possibility of conflict of interest. The DRC voted 2-1 to approve the project with conditions.

The appellant's issues on his appeal to the Board of Supervisors include: (1) project's non-conformance with the Zoning Regulations, (2) violation of Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 62807 concerning rules for County committees by the DRC that approved the proposed plan, (3) failure of the Planning Commission to properly consider the County's residential hillside Zoning Regulations Section 6565.15, and (4) failure to consider the viewpoint of the community representative on DRC.

The project is in conformance with Residential Hillside Zoning Regulations and Design Review Standards, and was reviewed by DRC in four public hearings and an informed decision was made. The decision-making process requires a majority vote for a project to be approved, denied, or to be continued. The position and vote of the community representative does not outweigh that of either of the two member architects. Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 62807 specifies standing rules for County Boards, Commissions, and Advisory Committees. However, the issue is now moot because both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors conduct a de novo review of an application on appeal. The Planning Commission, in its decision, found that the project conformed to the required Zoning Regulations and Design Review Standards. This is an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and the Board of Supervisors will conduct its own review of the application.